The History of the World's Largest Democracy - India After Gandhi
ByRamachandra Guha
| ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ | |
| ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ | |
| ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ | |
| ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ | |
| ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
Looking forThe History of the World's Largest Democracy - India After Gandhi in PDF?
Check out Scribid.com
Audiobook
Check out Audiobooks.com
Readers` Reviews
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆
silvia
An incisive critique of the enigma that Gandhi was, the gigantuan effort he put into, to shape and wield the political and psychological forces that led to the ousting of the island nation of England, who found India , their 'Jewel in the Crown, too good to leave behind. Great book.
★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆
ehren gresehover
After reading Ramachandra Guha, one despairs about the dire need for a centrist historian to document India's history and culture. Guha proudly carries the tradition of Indian leftist (non)intellectuals who seem to confuse facts and opinions. Facts belong to history, not opinions.
See this quote " through out 1990s as Hindu fundamentalism grew in India, islamic fundamentalism grew in Kashmir" . What happened in 1990's and early 2000's in Kashmir was terrorism as generally accepted by Non Pakistanis.
Another gem " Vajpayee government called for another election in 1999 hoping to improve its performance from 1998". Vajpayee government did not call for an election. AIADMK withdrew support to NDA coalition , Mrs. Sonia Gandhi's could not count to 272 that caused the need for an election.
Third one , "Jinnah died a few years of birth of Pakistan" Jinnah died on 9/11/1948 which is less than 13 months from creation of Pakistan. Also one wonders why this historian did not cover Ayub's offer of a treaty between India and Pakistan against China.
See this quote " through out 1990s as Hindu fundamentalism grew in India, islamic fundamentalism grew in Kashmir" . What happened in 1990's and early 2000's in Kashmir was terrorism as generally accepted by Non Pakistanis.
Another gem " Vajpayee government called for another election in 1999 hoping to improve its performance from 1998". Vajpayee government did not call for an election. AIADMK withdrew support to NDA coalition , Mrs. Sonia Gandhi's could not count to 272 that caused the need for an election.
Third one , "Jinnah died a few years of birth of Pakistan" Jinnah died on 9/11/1948 which is less than 13 months from creation of Pakistan. Also one wonders why this historian did not cover Ayub's offer of a treaty between India and Pakistan against China.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
krisann parks
I’ve been wanting to learn more about history for a long time now, and I’ve finally decided to take the plunge and start reading more history books. I started off with a book I’ve owned for about eight years now, but never got around to reading. I think I’ve been avoiding non-fiction because it takes me much longer to read and comprehend it, but I guess I should stop judging my reading by total number of books read.
India After Gandhi is a post-independence history of India; a subject I didn’t know a lot about, despite spending the first seventeen years of my life there. In school, our history books pretty much stopped at independence. It starts off with the Partition and the formation of the Indian government, and goes until 2007 (when the book was written), although the final two decades are not covered with the same level of historical detail (due to the events being too contemporary.)
The book is extremely comprehensive, Guha clearly did a lot of research – the bibliography is humongous. It covered the process of transitioning from British rule (highlighting administrative problems like integrating over 550 kingdoms into India, setting up free and fair elections for a largely illiterate electorate, and settling millions of refugees from Partition), subsequent politics, economic policy, social movements, and there’s even a chapter on popular entertainments. I learned a lot, I’m certainly a long way away from knowing all that I want to know about Indian history, but I feel like I have a solid foundation on which to build on, and I wouldn’t have thought one book would have been able to do that. It also gave me the historical context to understand several things I’d been confused about when I lived in India (like the history of the political parties and how they came to have the positions they did, and how the Indian states came to be organized in their current configuration.)
Guha does an admirable job of approaching things from a historian’s point of view, you can see that he has his own opinions as an Indian citizen, but he makes it pretty obvious that they are his own opinions when they crop up. I’m sure there are biases in what he chose to talk about and how he presented it, but those are unavoidable. My only complaint on that front was that Guha chooses to emphasize India’s successes, but doesn’t spend as much time talking about India’s failures. It’s not like he doesn’t acknowledge them, but because he doesn’t give them as much detail, they come across as relatively unimportant. For example, at one point he mentions that an election would be the first “free and fair” election in Kashmir, but all the talk of previous elections in the book so far had been about the heroic efforts of India’s Election Commission to set up elections that actually worked, so how did the Kashmir elections end up unfair?
Overall, I thought that this was a great book, and I’d recommend it to anyone looking to learn more about India. It did make me very sad, though – seeing India start out with such well-intentioned and smart leaders and devolve into the mess that it is now.
India After Gandhi is a post-independence history of India; a subject I didn’t know a lot about, despite spending the first seventeen years of my life there. In school, our history books pretty much stopped at independence. It starts off with the Partition and the formation of the Indian government, and goes until 2007 (when the book was written), although the final two decades are not covered with the same level of historical detail (due to the events being too contemporary.)
The book is extremely comprehensive, Guha clearly did a lot of research – the bibliography is humongous. It covered the process of transitioning from British rule (highlighting administrative problems like integrating over 550 kingdoms into India, setting up free and fair elections for a largely illiterate electorate, and settling millions of refugees from Partition), subsequent politics, economic policy, social movements, and there’s even a chapter on popular entertainments. I learned a lot, I’m certainly a long way away from knowing all that I want to know about Indian history, but I feel like I have a solid foundation on which to build on, and I wouldn’t have thought one book would have been able to do that. It also gave me the historical context to understand several things I’d been confused about when I lived in India (like the history of the political parties and how they came to have the positions they did, and how the Indian states came to be organized in their current configuration.)
Guha does an admirable job of approaching things from a historian’s point of view, you can see that he has his own opinions as an Indian citizen, but he makes it pretty obvious that they are his own opinions when they crop up. I’m sure there are biases in what he chose to talk about and how he presented it, but those are unavoidable. My only complaint on that front was that Guha chooses to emphasize India’s successes, but doesn’t spend as much time talking about India’s failures. It’s not like he doesn’t acknowledge them, but because he doesn’t give them as much detail, they come across as relatively unimportant. For example, at one point he mentions that an election would be the first “free and fair” election in Kashmir, but all the talk of previous elections in the book so far had been about the heroic efforts of India’s Election Commission to set up elections that actually worked, so how did the Kashmir elections end up unfair?
Overall, I thought that this was a great book, and I’d recommend it to anyone looking to learn more about India. It did make me very sad, though – seeing India start out with such well-intentioned and smart leaders and devolve into the mess that it is now.
After We Fell (The After Series) :: How to Race Strong for the Rest of Your Life - Fast After 50 :: Essays After Eighty :: Society: After it Happened Book 3 :: After Anna
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
paige
India after Gandhi
The author alerts his readers early on that for many Indians "history" ended with independence. Apparently, there have been practically no general histories of India as a nation-state. Thus this book fills a serious gap for those Westerners, especially, who want to understand more about the second largest country (by population) and largest democracy in the world.
The author is an articulate and erudite guide, giving us a traditional chronological story through the administration of Rajiv Gandhi, and then a more or less thematic exploration of India's more recent developments. This works well as the last of Nehru's descendants to rule marks something of a watershed in Indian politics. The new system of highly fragmented regional and caste politics, leading to largely non-ideological coalition governments in Delhi, has persisted and grown since 1989. That has made Indian democracy in some ways stronger but also more cynical and corrupt. The author cites polling in which some 90% of the Indian electorate considers their political leaders corrupt, and he estimates that half or more of Indian politicians are on the take, large or small. Overall, he judges that India is "50% democratic and 80% united." (The corruption undermines the democracy; marginalized minorities resist governmental authority in remote and poorer regions of India.)
Indeed, the challenges of unity and democracy are the central concerns of the Indian story. The author has culled from a trove of eminent pundits predictions throughout India's history of its demise as a democracy or as a unified state. Virtually all underestimated the resilience of India's vast amalgam of linguistic, religious, and ethnic groupings, and ultimately their appreciation of Winston Churchill's aphorism--that democracy is "the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Near the end of the volume, the author quotes an anonymous essayist who wrote about India's political future in 1958:
The prestige that the [Congress] party will enjoy as the inheritor of the mantle of Gandhi and Nehru will inhibit the growth of any effective or healthy opposition during the first few years. In later years as popular discontent against the new generation of party bosses increases, they will, for sheer self-preservation, be led to make to make increasing attempts to capture votes by pandering to caste, communal [i.e. sectarian] and regional interests and ultimately even to "rig" elections.
Heavy state involvement with the economy gave the State "glittering prizes to [offer to] the business community as well as the managerial classes, [so that] the monied interests are bound to infiltrate sooner or later into the ruling cadres of the party in power." Finally, the writer predicted that growth of caste, sectarian, and regional identity politics would lead to an "increasing instability of government first in the states, then at the Center." This instability would in turn lead the parties to rely increasingly on the politics of fear.
This assessment came closest to the truth of the many predictions, and may serve as a summary for much of what most ails India's politics today. Yet an outside Western observer must come away nevertheless impressed with an experiment which, the author points out, actually anticipated the pan-European movement in the postwar era. In effect, India is composed of the equivalent of at least a dozen or more nations analogous to the nations of Europe. They were connected loosely by a history of Hindu religion, migration, and invasion by Muslim peoples and then cobbled together administratively under the British raj. Their ability to cohere for sixty years now with an "Indian" identity is, as the author observes, a truly unique development in modern history.
Some suggestions for a second or revised edition - an index of maps and tables, a glossary for Western readers, a time line of key events, an expanded "Cast of Principal Characters" and a few more maps of physical features and political history to help orient the many readers coming to the history of India for the first time in depth. Providing a little more background on Hindu culture, the caste system, and pre-independence Hindu-Muslim relations would also help the general reader considerably. But at 893 pages, one might assume that is where the editor drew the line. However, I would have traded most of the chapter on "people's entertainments" for such background.
An excellent companion book to read is -- In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India by Edward Luce, a British citizen and correspondent married to an Indian. If possible read Guha first and then Luce for a more detailed and vivid look at contemporary India as shaped by the history portrayed in Guha's book.
The author alerts his readers early on that for many Indians "history" ended with independence. Apparently, there have been practically no general histories of India as a nation-state. Thus this book fills a serious gap for those Westerners, especially, who want to understand more about the second largest country (by population) and largest democracy in the world.
The author is an articulate and erudite guide, giving us a traditional chronological story through the administration of Rajiv Gandhi, and then a more or less thematic exploration of India's more recent developments. This works well as the last of Nehru's descendants to rule marks something of a watershed in Indian politics. The new system of highly fragmented regional and caste politics, leading to largely non-ideological coalition governments in Delhi, has persisted and grown since 1989. That has made Indian democracy in some ways stronger but also more cynical and corrupt. The author cites polling in which some 90% of the Indian electorate considers their political leaders corrupt, and he estimates that half or more of Indian politicians are on the take, large or small. Overall, he judges that India is "50% democratic and 80% united." (The corruption undermines the democracy; marginalized minorities resist governmental authority in remote and poorer regions of India.)
Indeed, the challenges of unity and democracy are the central concerns of the Indian story. The author has culled from a trove of eminent pundits predictions throughout India's history of its demise as a democracy or as a unified state. Virtually all underestimated the resilience of India's vast amalgam of linguistic, religious, and ethnic groupings, and ultimately their appreciation of Winston Churchill's aphorism--that democracy is "the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Near the end of the volume, the author quotes an anonymous essayist who wrote about India's political future in 1958:
The prestige that the [Congress] party will enjoy as the inheritor of the mantle of Gandhi and Nehru will inhibit the growth of any effective or healthy opposition during the first few years. In later years as popular discontent against the new generation of party bosses increases, they will, for sheer self-preservation, be led to make to make increasing attempts to capture votes by pandering to caste, communal [i.e. sectarian] and regional interests and ultimately even to "rig" elections.
Heavy state involvement with the economy gave the State "glittering prizes to [offer to] the business community as well as the managerial classes, [so that] the monied interests are bound to infiltrate sooner or later into the ruling cadres of the party in power." Finally, the writer predicted that growth of caste, sectarian, and regional identity politics would lead to an "increasing instability of government first in the states, then at the Center." This instability would in turn lead the parties to rely increasingly on the politics of fear.
This assessment came closest to the truth of the many predictions, and may serve as a summary for much of what most ails India's politics today. Yet an outside Western observer must come away nevertheless impressed with an experiment which, the author points out, actually anticipated the pan-European movement in the postwar era. In effect, India is composed of the equivalent of at least a dozen or more nations analogous to the nations of Europe. They were connected loosely by a history of Hindu religion, migration, and invasion by Muslim peoples and then cobbled together administratively under the British raj. Their ability to cohere for sixty years now with an "Indian" identity is, as the author observes, a truly unique development in modern history.
Some suggestions for a second or revised edition - an index of maps and tables, a glossary for Western readers, a time line of key events, an expanded "Cast of Principal Characters" and a few more maps of physical features and political history to help orient the many readers coming to the history of India for the first time in depth. Providing a little more background on Hindu culture, the caste system, and pre-independence Hindu-Muslim relations would also help the general reader considerably. But at 893 pages, one might assume that is where the editor drew the line. However, I would have traded most of the chapter on "people's entertainments" for such background.
An excellent companion book to read is -- In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India by Edward Luce, a British citizen and correspondent married to an Indian. If possible read Guha first and then Luce for a more detailed and vivid look at contemporary India as shaped by the history portrayed in Guha's book.
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
mallory lenski earwood
Ramachandra Guha has written a straightforward narative of the experience of India since Independence in 1947. The focus is primarily on political events but not at the expense of trying to get a view of the bigger picture.
I wouldnt consider it a great book of analysis, but as an introduction to post independence India it is more than adequate. Many colourful characters populate this history, this most admirable being Nehru himself, unfortunately a Hindu extremist knocked off Gandhi not long after the "great adventure" of Indian independence began with the bloody fiasco of partition which itself is covered in some detail. Indira Gandhi (Nehrus daughter) and the authoress of the "emergency" in the mid seventies comes across as arrogant and authoritarian and brimming with sufficient self belief to be more than a nuisance to her country. Her off spring are more or less worse. This is one of the sadder things about post Independence India, the dynasties which ought to be regarded as a degeneration of democracy. Given recent US experience it is not something the West, especially the US, should feel to smug about. More optimistically at least, unlike neighbouring Pakistan, the army has been kept out of politics.
Its hardly suprising that communal relations and all too often violence, regional antagonisms, Kashmir and Pakistan take up a great deal of the narrative. The monstrosity of the caste system is covered, including a photo of an upper caste Hindu immolating himself in defence of his caste privileges - one wonders if those wealthy Brits recently hit by the 50% tax rate will follow his example?
I feel that the author makes too much of the fact that India survived as a democracy, the designation appears purely formal. Monied interests, corrupt politicians rule the roost - the lower castes, tribals (Dalits), rural society have not felt the trickle down effect of Indias high tech sector and have made only sporadic progress over the 60 years since the British left. Political parties seem short on principles and are often communal in nature, this of course is not something particular to India, but from reading Guhas book it is clearly something the Indian political class excels at. The author is unfortunately cool towards the exceptions to this rule such as the Communists in West Bengal and Kerala. I would have thought that the experiences of those States under Communist rule would have been given more space. Alas not.
Having said all that, it is still a very readable narrative history that kept me well and truly hooked over the 750 pages and a good introduction to the experiment that has been independent India. Other books on India after independence that I have found interesting are Tariq Ali's The Nehrus and the Gandhis: An Indian Dynasty and P.Sainath's collection of reportage on rural India Everybody Loves a Good Drought: Stories from India's Poorest Districts.
I wouldnt consider it a great book of analysis, but as an introduction to post independence India it is more than adequate. Many colourful characters populate this history, this most admirable being Nehru himself, unfortunately a Hindu extremist knocked off Gandhi not long after the "great adventure" of Indian independence began with the bloody fiasco of partition which itself is covered in some detail. Indira Gandhi (Nehrus daughter) and the authoress of the "emergency" in the mid seventies comes across as arrogant and authoritarian and brimming with sufficient self belief to be more than a nuisance to her country. Her off spring are more or less worse. This is one of the sadder things about post Independence India, the dynasties which ought to be regarded as a degeneration of democracy. Given recent US experience it is not something the West, especially the US, should feel to smug about. More optimistically at least, unlike neighbouring Pakistan, the army has been kept out of politics.
Its hardly suprising that communal relations and all too often violence, regional antagonisms, Kashmir and Pakistan take up a great deal of the narrative. The monstrosity of the caste system is covered, including a photo of an upper caste Hindu immolating himself in defence of his caste privileges - one wonders if those wealthy Brits recently hit by the 50% tax rate will follow his example?
I feel that the author makes too much of the fact that India survived as a democracy, the designation appears purely formal. Monied interests, corrupt politicians rule the roost - the lower castes, tribals (Dalits), rural society have not felt the trickle down effect of Indias high tech sector and have made only sporadic progress over the 60 years since the British left. Political parties seem short on principles and are often communal in nature, this of course is not something particular to India, but from reading Guhas book it is clearly something the Indian political class excels at. The author is unfortunately cool towards the exceptions to this rule such as the Communists in West Bengal and Kerala. I would have thought that the experiences of those States under Communist rule would have been given more space. Alas not.
Having said all that, it is still a very readable narrative history that kept me well and truly hooked over the 750 pages and a good introduction to the experiment that has been independent India. Other books on India after independence that I have found interesting are Tariq Ali's The Nehrus and the Gandhis: An Indian Dynasty and P.Sainath's collection of reportage on rural India Everybody Loves a Good Drought: Stories from India's Poorest Districts.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
chequero
Mr. Guha makes an interesting point in this book: to create a viable democracy, you need strong people who have a vision and a purpose. Thus the likes of John Adams and William Jefferson tinkered with the democratic experiment that is USA and Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel did the same for the Indian experiment. However, and this is important, Mr. Guha maintains that once democracy is established, it is capable of being run by mediocre statesmen (or -women.) Case in point: Mr. George W. Bush and Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Both of these probably hurt the cause of democracy during their tenure --- Mr. Bush by tacitly suspending some civil liberties after 9/11 and Mrs. Indira Gandhi's open suspension of the same during Emergency in India. Strong democracies, nonetheless, will survive.
This book, then, is a great look at the democratic experiment in India. Democracy in India is strongly identified with Nehru and Patel, both influential actors in a post-independent India. A sometime forgotten player, although just as influential a figure in the Indian democratic experiment was Dr. Ambedkar, US-educated writer of the Indian Constitution. That he was of a scheduled caste (the Indian political term for those at the wrong end of the Indian class system) is proof positive of the egalitarian view espoused by Nehru in a post independent India.
The book begins where the British rule ends, 15th August, 1947: Indian independence and subsequent vivisection of the country into two pieces --- India and Pakistan --- the ramifications of which are felt even today. Mr. Guha traces the meticulousness of Nehru in establishing the "new temples of India" and the iron-fist of Patel in gathering the multitude of newly independent states under the Union of India umbrella. Discussed along the way are intricate details of why the states were divided on a linguistic lines, why the tribal areas in the north- eastern part of the country have been a hotbed for insurgency, and why India has survived --- and indeed will continue --- as a democracy.
I have often argued that to understand modern India, you have to read the writings of Mr. Shashi Tharoor and Mr. Sunil Khilani. Add to that list the name of Mr. Ramachandra Guha. This was a great book.
This book, then, is a great look at the democratic experiment in India. Democracy in India is strongly identified with Nehru and Patel, both influential actors in a post-independent India. A sometime forgotten player, although just as influential a figure in the Indian democratic experiment was Dr. Ambedkar, US-educated writer of the Indian Constitution. That he was of a scheduled caste (the Indian political term for those at the wrong end of the Indian class system) is proof positive of the egalitarian view espoused by Nehru in a post independent India.
The book begins where the British rule ends, 15th August, 1947: Indian independence and subsequent vivisection of the country into two pieces --- India and Pakistan --- the ramifications of which are felt even today. Mr. Guha traces the meticulousness of Nehru in establishing the "new temples of India" and the iron-fist of Patel in gathering the multitude of newly independent states under the Union of India umbrella. Discussed along the way are intricate details of why the states were divided on a linguistic lines, why the tribal areas in the north- eastern part of the country have been a hotbed for insurgency, and why India has survived --- and indeed will continue --- as a democracy.
I have often argued that to understand modern India, you have to read the writings of Mr. Shashi Tharoor and Mr. Sunil Khilani. Add to that list the name of Mr. Ramachandra Guha. This was a great book.
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
janneke krieg
At long last a fairly detailed post-independence history of modern India. As many reviewers have stated the writing and organization of the book is excellent. Numerous historical players make their appearance in this text. I learned quite a bit from this work. Reading this book is akin to reading a good novel.
There is one drawback to the text which in my opinion is quite significant. I mean the absolute lack of GOOD DETAIL READABLE maps. There are a few maps but they are scantily illustrated with terrible font size and lack detail essential to the text narration. Why am I so hung up on the map issue? Because to follow the text wherein numerous mentions are made of cities and migrations one needs good maps to trace the writing and FULLY appreciate the author's excellent work. I suspect that the author will agree with my point. I found a pre-independence map of India on the web and printed it off to make my reading worthy of the time that the book deserves.
Hopefully in the next edition this significant shortfall will be corrected. Nevertheless don't let that stop you from reading this book. Excellent and valuable text.
There is one drawback to the text which in my opinion is quite significant. I mean the absolute lack of GOOD DETAIL READABLE maps. There are a few maps but they are scantily illustrated with terrible font size and lack detail essential to the text narration. Why am I so hung up on the map issue? Because to follow the text wherein numerous mentions are made of cities and migrations one needs good maps to trace the writing and FULLY appreciate the author's excellent work. I suspect that the author will agree with my point. I found a pre-independence map of India on the web and printed it off to make my reading worthy of the time that the book deserves.
Hopefully in the next edition this significant shortfall will be corrected. Nevertheless don't let that stop you from reading this book. Excellent and valuable text.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
havva
Mr. Guha makes an interesting point in this book: to create a viable democracy, you need strong people who have a vision and a purpose. Thus the likes of John Adams and William Jefferson tinkered with the democratic experiment that is USA and Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel did the same for the Indian experiment. However, and this is important, Mr. Guha maintains that once democracy is established, it is capable of being run by mediocre statesmen (or -women.) Case in point: Mr. George W. Bush and Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Both of these probably hurt the cause of democracy during their tenure --- Mr. Bush by tacitly suspending some civil liberties after 9/11 and Mrs. Indira Gandhi's open suspension of the same during Emergency in India. Strong democracies, nonetheless, will survive.
This book, then, is a great look at the democratic experiment in India. Democracy in India is strongly identified with Nehru and Patel, both influential actors in a post-independent India. A sometime forgotten player, although just as influential a figure in the Indian democratic experiment was Dr. Ambedkar, US-educated writer of the Indian Constitution. That he was of a scheduled caste (the Indian political term for those at the wrong end of the Indian class system) is proof positive of the egalitarian view espoused by Nehru in a post independent India.
The book begins where the British rule ends, 15th August, 1947: Indian independence and subsequent vivisection of the country into two pieces --- India and Pakistan --- the ramifications of which are felt even today. Mr. Guha traces the meticulousness of Nehru in establishing the "new temples of India" and the iron-fist of Patel in gathering the multitude of newly independent states under the Union of India umbrella. Discussed along the way are intricate details of why the states were divided on a linguistic lines, why the tribal areas in the north- eastern part of the country have been a hotbed for insurgency, and why India has survived --- and indeed will continue --- as a democracy.
I have often argued that to understand modern India, you have to read the writings of Mr. Shashi Tharoor and Mr. Sunil Khilani. Add to that list the name of Mr. Ramachandra Guha. This was a great book.
This book, then, is a great look at the democratic experiment in India. Democracy in India is strongly identified with Nehru and Patel, both influential actors in a post-independent India. A sometime forgotten player, although just as influential a figure in the Indian democratic experiment was Dr. Ambedkar, US-educated writer of the Indian Constitution. That he was of a scheduled caste (the Indian political term for those at the wrong end of the Indian class system) is proof positive of the egalitarian view espoused by Nehru in a post independent India.
The book begins where the British rule ends, 15th August, 1947: Indian independence and subsequent vivisection of the country into two pieces --- India and Pakistan --- the ramifications of which are felt even today. Mr. Guha traces the meticulousness of Nehru in establishing the "new temples of India" and the iron-fist of Patel in gathering the multitude of newly independent states under the Union of India umbrella. Discussed along the way are intricate details of why the states were divided on a linguistic lines, why the tribal areas in the north- eastern part of the country have been a hotbed for insurgency, and why India has survived --- and indeed will continue --- as a democracy.
I have often argued that to understand modern India, you have to read the writings of Mr. Shashi Tharoor and Mr. Sunil Khilani. Add to that list the name of Mr. Ramachandra Guha. This was a great book.
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
mariya
At long last a fairly detailed post-independence history of modern India. As many reviewers have stated the writing and organization of the book is excellent. Numerous historical players make their appearance in this text. I learned quite a bit from this work. Reading this book is akin to reading a good novel.
There is one drawback to the text which in my opinion is quite significant. I mean the absolute lack of GOOD DETAIL READABLE maps. There are a few maps but they are scantily illustrated with terrible font size and lack detail essential to the text narration. Why am I so hung up on the map issue? Because to follow the text wherein numerous mentions are made of cities and migrations one needs good maps to trace the writing and FULLY appreciate the author's excellent work. I suspect that the author will agree with my point. I found a pre-independence map of India on the web and printed it off to make my reading worthy of the time that the book deserves.
Hopefully in the next edition this significant shortfall will be corrected. Nevertheless don't let that stop you from reading this book. Excellent and valuable text.
There is one drawback to the text which in my opinion is quite significant. I mean the absolute lack of GOOD DETAIL READABLE maps. There are a few maps but they are scantily illustrated with terrible font size and lack detail essential to the text narration. Why am I so hung up on the map issue? Because to follow the text wherein numerous mentions are made of cities and migrations one needs good maps to trace the writing and FULLY appreciate the author's excellent work. I suspect that the author will agree with my point. I found a pre-independence map of India on the web and printed it off to make my reading worthy of the time that the book deserves.
Hopefully in the next edition this significant shortfall will be corrected. Nevertheless don't let that stop you from reading this book. Excellent and valuable text.
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
joy m
In my mind, three things stand out about this book: it comes across as intellectually objective, full of interesting facts and very brave.
Firstly, the views on Nehru are refreshing and enlightening, especially because they contrast him with his daughter, who undid many of his contributions. Guha especially conveys how it was Indira Gandhi who probably inculcated the `dynasty' not just in the Congress party, but for others to emulate. You definitely don't leave this book feeling positive about Indira, and in my opinion, rightly so.
His view of the 1965 war with Pakistan: a `stalemate'. It was only post 1971 that India abandoned non-alignment in favor of the Soviets because of Russian pro-activeness, not the other way round. Going back to the mid-50s, India's non-alignment suffered when Nehru & Menon refused to slam the Soviets for their invasion of Hungary. There are far too many little interesting tid-bits to mention, but its great that he's covered a wide range of issues such as the rise of caste-based politics (over ideology) in the late 70s, the various cults of personality across the country, the botched Chinese war, etc. He does give the post independence leadership a positive pat on the back, given the circumstances. I especially like his coverage of the 90s that lead us to where India is today. One thing I've enjoyed about this book is that it is a good primer for understanding India's current affairs - it has improved my understanding of context when I read the morning papers in India. Even by the author's own admission that it takes a generation to view past events correctly, he has done an admirable job.
Kashmir is given 'fair' treatment in that, it is the unfortunate Kashmiri (both Hindu and Muslim) who has been been caught in a wider struggle that included British, American, Soviet and Chinese interests at the time of partition itself. Guha clearly shows that for very different reasons, neither India nor Pakistan have fared well.
Guha admires India's continued democratic lean, especially its ability and resourcefulness in holding elections. India's multi-lingual democracy is favorably contrasted against countries that have viewed linguistic differences as an opportunity to secede. His bravest views are against the horrible politically motivated pogroms against the Sikhs in Delhi and the Muslims in Godhra. It is refreshing to see this point of view coming from within (ie, an Indian) not that India's `free press' has been afraid of voicing its opinion, just not as clearly as Guha does.
Personally, I wish he'd spent a little more time talking about the psychological mind-shift from the early 70s to this generation of up-beat world beaters. Instead of hoping others write more deeply about some of the subjects he briefly touched (as he mentioned during his book launch), perhaps he should himself have another go at a follow up book. This book however, covers many topics deeply enough for me to highly recommend his work.
Firstly, the views on Nehru are refreshing and enlightening, especially because they contrast him with his daughter, who undid many of his contributions. Guha especially conveys how it was Indira Gandhi who probably inculcated the `dynasty' not just in the Congress party, but for others to emulate. You definitely don't leave this book feeling positive about Indira, and in my opinion, rightly so.
His view of the 1965 war with Pakistan: a `stalemate'. It was only post 1971 that India abandoned non-alignment in favor of the Soviets because of Russian pro-activeness, not the other way round. Going back to the mid-50s, India's non-alignment suffered when Nehru & Menon refused to slam the Soviets for their invasion of Hungary. There are far too many little interesting tid-bits to mention, but its great that he's covered a wide range of issues such as the rise of caste-based politics (over ideology) in the late 70s, the various cults of personality across the country, the botched Chinese war, etc. He does give the post independence leadership a positive pat on the back, given the circumstances. I especially like his coverage of the 90s that lead us to where India is today. One thing I've enjoyed about this book is that it is a good primer for understanding India's current affairs - it has improved my understanding of context when I read the morning papers in India. Even by the author's own admission that it takes a generation to view past events correctly, he has done an admirable job.
Kashmir is given 'fair' treatment in that, it is the unfortunate Kashmiri (both Hindu and Muslim) who has been been caught in a wider struggle that included British, American, Soviet and Chinese interests at the time of partition itself. Guha clearly shows that for very different reasons, neither India nor Pakistan have fared well.
Guha admires India's continued democratic lean, especially its ability and resourcefulness in holding elections. India's multi-lingual democracy is favorably contrasted against countries that have viewed linguistic differences as an opportunity to secede. His bravest views are against the horrible politically motivated pogroms against the Sikhs in Delhi and the Muslims in Godhra. It is refreshing to see this point of view coming from within (ie, an Indian) not that India's `free press' has been afraid of voicing its opinion, just not as clearly as Guha does.
Personally, I wish he'd spent a little more time talking about the psychological mind-shift from the early 70s to this generation of up-beat world beaters. Instead of hoping others write more deeply about some of the subjects he briefly touched (as he mentioned during his book launch), perhaps he should himself have another go at a follow up book. This book however, covers many topics deeply enough for me to highly recommend his work.
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆
carolina
The book is a significant effort to narrate the political history of India since independence until around the year 2000. The author is to be positively commented for presenting cogently in chronological manner how the politics evolved in the fifty years and the reader gets to understand with some degree the logic why the Indian politics is what it is today. The book is certainly worth reading.
That said, I have to bring up the following comments as to how the material is presented.
My first concern is that the author has depended on the comments and views of more foreigners rather than that of Indians to present his narration. I guess that we are till awed by the white skin and maintain our contempt over the brown skin. The independence came only in a political sense but we are still intellectually colonized.
More glaring is the author’s anti-Hindu bias which can even be seen as a form of hatred towards Hindus. His narration of Gujarat riots (p.646-647) ranges from totally biased to outright lies. Without any shame he stated that “fire broke out in one of the coaches”. In reality the fire was set by Muslim rioters who had stopped in the outskirts of Godhra station and they would not even let firemen access the train to put out the fire. The numbers killed in the riots that followed will never be known (like all such riots in India) but Guha stated that “more than 2000 Muslims were killed…” (p 647) never acknowledging that a third of fatalities of the riots were Hindus. This especially shows his bias when you read his chapter on the civil war that led to the formation of Bangladesh where 8 million refugees were pushed into India. Guha scrupulously writes that “Most (though my no means all) were Hindus” (p 452, emphasis mine). Author must believe that the Muslim suffering has to be trumpeted more loudly than Hindu suffering.
It is depressing to see that the author claims that “colonial jailors were altogether more humane” (p496). He is blind to the stories of suffering of Thilak, Savarkar, Chidambaram Pillai and many similar cases?
Most of the western style educated elite HIndus get their knowledge of Hindusim from hearsay or what Europeans wrote rather than their own reading of original sources. This author is no different. He shows his ignorance by referring Manu as “the Hindu Law giver” (p574). In reality, Manu’s Dharma Shastra is only one of the many (around one hundred) such works and none of them ever had universal following anywhere or any time in India. Different rulers and societal segments at different times adopted one or more of the Dharma Shastras that were politically feasible and socially acceptable. Manu started occupying centrality after the Colonial British administrators used it to develop the Indian penal code. Most Hindus have not ever seen Manus’s book, most would not know where to get one even if they want to.
Author shows his ignorance again when he states: “It is possible to view Hindu faith as a river of many branches that feed into the mainstream …….. there is no main river at all”(p 578). Hinduism is indeed a collection of belief systems (sampradayas) but all these systems are connected by the core concepts of karma, samsara and mukti and these concepts indeed form the main river. I cannot blame the author for his ignorance because ninety-five percent of Hindus cannot articulate what Hinduism is or what it means to be a Hindu.
In sum, it is a useful book to read but the reader has to take the author’s conclusions and comments with a large grain of salt especially those related to Hindus.
That said, I have to bring up the following comments as to how the material is presented.
My first concern is that the author has depended on the comments and views of more foreigners rather than that of Indians to present his narration. I guess that we are till awed by the white skin and maintain our contempt over the brown skin. The independence came only in a political sense but we are still intellectually colonized.
More glaring is the author’s anti-Hindu bias which can even be seen as a form of hatred towards Hindus. His narration of Gujarat riots (p.646-647) ranges from totally biased to outright lies. Without any shame he stated that “fire broke out in one of the coaches”. In reality the fire was set by Muslim rioters who had stopped in the outskirts of Godhra station and they would not even let firemen access the train to put out the fire. The numbers killed in the riots that followed will never be known (like all such riots in India) but Guha stated that “more than 2000 Muslims were killed…” (p 647) never acknowledging that a third of fatalities of the riots were Hindus. This especially shows his bias when you read his chapter on the civil war that led to the formation of Bangladesh where 8 million refugees were pushed into India. Guha scrupulously writes that “Most (though my no means all) were Hindus” (p 452, emphasis mine). Author must believe that the Muslim suffering has to be trumpeted more loudly than Hindu suffering.
It is depressing to see that the author claims that “colonial jailors were altogether more humane” (p496). He is blind to the stories of suffering of Thilak, Savarkar, Chidambaram Pillai and many similar cases?
Most of the western style educated elite HIndus get their knowledge of Hindusim from hearsay or what Europeans wrote rather than their own reading of original sources. This author is no different. He shows his ignorance by referring Manu as “the Hindu Law giver” (p574). In reality, Manu’s Dharma Shastra is only one of the many (around one hundred) such works and none of them ever had universal following anywhere or any time in India. Different rulers and societal segments at different times adopted one or more of the Dharma Shastras that were politically feasible and socially acceptable. Manu started occupying centrality after the Colonial British administrators used it to develop the Indian penal code. Most Hindus have not ever seen Manus’s book, most would not know where to get one even if they want to.
Author shows his ignorance again when he states: “It is possible to view Hindu faith as a river of many branches that feed into the mainstream …….. there is no main river at all”(p 578). Hinduism is indeed a collection of belief systems (sampradayas) but all these systems are connected by the core concepts of karma, samsara and mukti and these concepts indeed form the main river. I cannot blame the author for his ignorance because ninety-five percent of Hindus cannot articulate what Hinduism is or what it means to be a Hindu.
In sum, it is a useful book to read but the reader has to take the author’s conclusions and comments with a large grain of salt especially those related to Hindus.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
yaryna
India After Ganghi
By Ramachandra Guha
While sitting at a bar over a couple of beers, I was telling my son what I learned from this book. In this book I learned about India's founder's insistence on democracy. I learned about their insistence on governing with a value for secularism. I learned that formulating a national identity was required to bring unity to a 28 States. This was packed in to 700 plus pages of factual detail blended with a coloring of the personal views of many active participants focusing largely around Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. While I was sharing my views, a guy standing next to me fist made a claim that Indians hate Mahatma Gandhi because he slowed down the Indian movement for independence. He then made the assertion that India's Independence was not won but only handed to them and therefore not as legitimate as what occurred in the American independence. And finally he asserted that nationalism is bad for any people. This came from a History major. So the first words in my mind were ugly American arrogance, hubris, and ignorance. My recommendation to him was for him to read this book. Apparently after acquiring the Bachelors in History he saw no need. To all the rest of my readers, this can be a case made for the ugly American. However ihis defense and in this context, the ugliest American leading the way is our own Richard Nixon who was very indignant towards India and Indira Gandhi personally. I can only guess that college's place a biased view rout from history's practice to not call it history until 20 years has elapsed and therefore history majors, without studying current affairs are caught flat footed and behind the times. I too was guilty of ignorance until I read this book. It is only lately that the United States has opened up to India. It is only lately since 1990 that India has found sound international footing as an economic power. In response, GW Bush was the first American President to visit India. It's my hope and recommendation that all Americans follow suit and this book is a great bridge to understanding today's India.
This book lays it out there. India's accomplishments had its challenges, its bright side and its dark side. It is far from perfect, yet because of its secular based democracy and its national unity of over one billion people, there is nothing but potential for national good. On this record, India has never waged a preemptive war on any other country. In fact at the core of India's governance is to manage themselves on Indian terms alone. Of its domestic problems there is a disparity in people caused by a caste system, religion, language and the cultures that are derived from the previous three. Where Mahatma Gandhi had cast the mold for India to find its independence in a secular democracy it was the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, of like mind with Gandhi, who poured raw material into mold. Nehru ruled over India with a socialistic hand in a parliamentary government through its first 15 years. This period was followed by an equal amount of time under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi daughter Indira Gandhi where in turn her son ruled over India. It is clearly seen through the succession of the Gandhi line that Mahatma Gandhi's legacy was at the heart of every Indian as the father of their country.
Guha makes it clear that India found its own way un-assisted by outside influence. Unlike Pakistan, please type in a key word search cigarroomofbooks for the month of 8/2010 you will find my complete review with foot notes.
By Ramachandra Guha
While sitting at a bar over a couple of beers, I was telling my son what I learned from this book. In this book I learned about India's founder's insistence on democracy. I learned about their insistence on governing with a value for secularism. I learned that formulating a national identity was required to bring unity to a 28 States. This was packed in to 700 plus pages of factual detail blended with a coloring of the personal views of many active participants focusing largely around Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. While I was sharing my views, a guy standing next to me fist made a claim that Indians hate Mahatma Gandhi because he slowed down the Indian movement for independence. He then made the assertion that India's Independence was not won but only handed to them and therefore not as legitimate as what occurred in the American independence. And finally he asserted that nationalism is bad for any people. This came from a History major. So the first words in my mind were ugly American arrogance, hubris, and ignorance. My recommendation to him was for him to read this book. Apparently after acquiring the Bachelors in History he saw no need. To all the rest of my readers, this can be a case made for the ugly American. However ihis defense and in this context, the ugliest American leading the way is our own Richard Nixon who was very indignant towards India and Indira Gandhi personally. I can only guess that college's place a biased view rout from history's practice to not call it history until 20 years has elapsed and therefore history majors, without studying current affairs are caught flat footed and behind the times. I too was guilty of ignorance until I read this book. It is only lately that the United States has opened up to India. It is only lately since 1990 that India has found sound international footing as an economic power. In response, GW Bush was the first American President to visit India. It's my hope and recommendation that all Americans follow suit and this book is a great bridge to understanding today's India.
This book lays it out there. India's accomplishments had its challenges, its bright side and its dark side. It is far from perfect, yet because of its secular based democracy and its national unity of over one billion people, there is nothing but potential for national good. On this record, India has never waged a preemptive war on any other country. In fact at the core of India's governance is to manage themselves on Indian terms alone. Of its domestic problems there is a disparity in people caused by a caste system, religion, language and the cultures that are derived from the previous three. Where Mahatma Gandhi had cast the mold for India to find its independence in a secular democracy it was the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, of like mind with Gandhi, who poured raw material into mold. Nehru ruled over India with a socialistic hand in a parliamentary government through its first 15 years. This period was followed by an equal amount of time under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi daughter Indira Gandhi where in turn her son ruled over India. It is clearly seen through the succession of the Gandhi line that Mahatma Gandhi's legacy was at the heart of every Indian as the father of their country.
Guha makes it clear that India found its own way un-assisted by outside influence. Unlike Pakistan, please type in a key word search cigarroomofbooks for the month of 8/2010 you will find my complete review with foot notes.
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
achala talati
Ramachandra Guha, Stanford/Yale professor turned writer, has done an outstanding job covering the history of India since 1947. The book is very engaging and informative. If you want to understand the evolution of modern India, you ought to read this book.
India's journey in the last sixty years could be described as a journey between two books: from Katherine Mayo's "Mother India" (dismissed by Mahatma Gandhi as a drain inspector's report) to Thomas Friedman's "The World is flat" (with adulations about a confident and growing economy).
The journey has several good and bad milestones:
(a) Good news: The country dealt with the messy partition - a great human tragedy that displaced 8 million people. Handling the bi-directional migration in Punjab was easier than the uni-directional immigration in Bengal.
(b) Good news: India, the political entity was created by unifying the various bits of the jigsaw puzzle left behind by the British; a country that the nation never had in several thousand years of history .
(c) Good news: A style of government based on rule of law, secular principles and a stable constitution was fashioned. A constitution based on liberty, democracy, emancipation and equality was created. Democracy has been the biggest strength of India in the last 60 years.
(d) Good news: The country was re-organized into linguistic states. Linguistic bonding created strong states under a federal structure and is one of the reasons why democracy has had a deep rooted existence in India.
(e) Good news: Nehru set in place political sensitivity that a heterogeneous population requires to hold the country together. Muslims in India went on to play a great role in India.
(f) Good news: Nehru laid the foundation for democratic traditions by conducting general elections every five years by universal adult franchise. Popular mandate dictated public policy and politics. Transfer of government from one administration to another was civilized.
(g) Good news: The Hindu personal code was reformed and standardized; a true revolt against the oppressive features of the Hindu society. Nehru/Ambedkar achieved in 17 years what could not be achieved in the preceding 1,700 years.
(h) Bad news: Nehru empathized with but desisted from reforming Muslim code; he preferred to leave it for a later day and to Muslim leadership. The Supreme Court judgment in Shah Bano case offered an opportunity. Muslim leadership was in support of this reform. However, Rajiv Gandhi, fearing electoral defeat, reversed the judgment by legislation in spite of the protest and resignation of his Muslim minister Arif Mohammed Khan.
(i) Good news: India got the ruler of Kashmir to sign on to join India when Pakistan sent "trained insurgents" to take Kashmir by force. Nehru got the popular Muslim leader Sheikh Abdullah to support accession to India. Nehru held general elections in Kashmir to ensure governments in Kashmir were backed by popular mandate.
(j) Bad news: Democratic principles and civil liberty were severely challenged by Indira Gandhi.
1 Constitutional rights and civil liberty were suspended for two years. However, these were restored by a wiser government that followed.
2 Political leadership in opposition was imprisoned but opposition leadership rose to the challenge; and the electorate rejected Indira's actions by voting her out; her defeat was near total.
3 Political leadership in Congress party itself was weakened; inner party democracy weakened and power shifted to a coterie of advisors and members of the family. The party is yet to recover from this; however, the weakening of the Congress party has strengthened Indian democracy. Since 1989 no party has been able to form government on its own and coalition governments have come to stay widening and deepening democracy but rendering public policy slightly incoherent.
4 Political leadership at state level was weakened; and nominees of "high command" were "elected" by obedient legislatures to power as Chief Ministers. However, strong leaders like N T Rama Rao rose to protect "Teluguwala gopatnamu" and brought back pride to leadership at state level.
5 Government executives were pressured to be "committed" to political agenda (instead of being neutral in a multiparty democracy). Government executives were too glad to co-operate and several of them have turned to political careers after retirement.
6 Judiciary was pressured to be "committed" to political agenda. Though there have been a few instances of favored promotions, the Judiciary has substantially held its independence.
7 Gag rules were enforced on press for two years by Indira Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi attempted, in response to stories of corruption, legislation to jail editors for "scurrilous publication". Fortunately protests in Parliament prevented the legislation.
(k) Bad news: Corruption became endemic in the system. State's control over economic assets, and State's leverage over private enterprise were enhanced ostensibly to fight the rich on behalf of the poor; but with a more obvious consequence of decision-makers in government being able to convert their influence over the direction and timeliness of the decisions into personal or political wealth.
(l) Bad news: India saw two pogroms. Against Sikhs in Delhi in 1984. Against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Both arose due to willed breakdown of law. The PM in Delhi and the CM in Gujarat issued graceless statements that in effect justified the killings. Very unfortunately both reaped electoral rewards.
(m) Bad news: Rising Religious fundamentalism, by Hindus and Muslims, affected peaceful co-existence. A sixteenth century mosque around a Hindu sacred site has been a trigger for religious divide in India for long. Destruction of the mosque by Hindu fundamentalists stepped up the divide. Mahatma Gandhi's advice to a pluralistic society to not seek benefits for the maximum; but maximize benefits for all was sadly forgotten.
(n) Good news: Backward castes who benefited economically from land reforms have started asserting themselves politically (Karunanidhi, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo Prasad Yadav). Dalits found new leadership in Kanshi Ram and Mayawati. Increasing political assertiveness would influence the differences to vanish in the long run.
(o) Bad news: Territorial integrity of India saw a few challenges that stemmed from:
1 Departing British rulers encouraging princely states and hill tribes to remain independent and have a dominion status with Britain so that the empire survives the Raj. Churchill's support to Hyderabad and Nagaland are examples.
2 Political insensitivity of federal government to the pride, claim to common resources, border or leadership as in the case of Punjab
3 Pakistan's agenda to avenge the loss of Bangladesh by supporting religious divide and sponsoring terrorism.
4 Kashmir.
(p) Bad news: The economy was mismanaged for first 35 years and is dogged by a "blow hot blow cold" view for next 25 years.
1 Indian economy, second largest in the world from time immemorial to 18th century stagnated with zero growth from 1857 to 1947 thanks to inept British rule.
2 The young nation pursued socialism (centralized planning, state ownership of big ticket industry, state control over private enterprise etc) for two reasons: Nehru truly believed in it; Indira Gandhi saw an opportunity in it to get defined as pro-poor and win elections. End result: Economy grew at a stately pace of 3.5% pa for the first 35 years.
3 The mid sixties famine was a shock to India. However, the "green revolution" helped India achieve self sufficiency in food production. Wheat production doubled. Rice production grew 50%.
4 Rajiv Gandhi started with right ideas by liberalizing trade, reducing duties, incenting exporters, simplifying license regime, lifting curbs on businesses and reducing tax rates; but reverted to populism closer to election time. (He did not win, however).
5 The 1987 drought affected 200 million people and entailed a few starvation deaths.
(q) Good news: A severe economic crisis forced politics to take back seat and introduce economic reforms in India that pushed India into a growth path.
1 The coalition governments inherited a crisis and had to take "significant" steps in opening up the economy, inviting foreign investment, and liberalizing trade.
2 However, there is a continuing debate between "reformers" and "populists".
3 Economy is growing at a faster 6-8% in the last ten years.
4 There were success stories. The software service exports, aided by Nehru's education system and linguistic policy, Rajiv's emphasis on telecommunication and George Fernandes expulsion of IBM giving rise to indigenous players, grew from $ 0.1 billion in 1990 to $ 13.0 billion in 2004.
We have today a confident and rapidly growing India; well integrated with global markets for goods/services and capital. Democracy has taken a deeper root and some tradition in the country. Several malaises prevail and pose challenges.
Will India survive?
So long as the democractic traditions remain, secularism prevails, citizens remain free, market is respected and civil service/army remain; and Hindi film songs are sung, India will survive" says Guha.
Let me add my contribution to India with a Hindi film song: "so jo kabi aisa ho to kya ho?"
Just dont miss the book. If possible recommend the book to a young Indian.
India's journey in the last sixty years could be described as a journey between two books: from Katherine Mayo's "Mother India" (dismissed by Mahatma Gandhi as a drain inspector's report) to Thomas Friedman's "The World is flat" (with adulations about a confident and growing economy).
The journey has several good and bad milestones:
(a) Good news: The country dealt with the messy partition - a great human tragedy that displaced 8 million people. Handling the bi-directional migration in Punjab was easier than the uni-directional immigration in Bengal.
(b) Good news: India, the political entity was created by unifying the various bits of the jigsaw puzzle left behind by the British; a country that the nation never had in several thousand years of history .
(c) Good news: A style of government based on rule of law, secular principles and a stable constitution was fashioned. A constitution based on liberty, democracy, emancipation and equality was created. Democracy has been the biggest strength of India in the last 60 years.
(d) Good news: The country was re-organized into linguistic states. Linguistic bonding created strong states under a federal structure and is one of the reasons why democracy has had a deep rooted existence in India.
(e) Good news: Nehru set in place political sensitivity that a heterogeneous population requires to hold the country together. Muslims in India went on to play a great role in India.
(f) Good news: Nehru laid the foundation for democratic traditions by conducting general elections every five years by universal adult franchise. Popular mandate dictated public policy and politics. Transfer of government from one administration to another was civilized.
(g) Good news: The Hindu personal code was reformed and standardized; a true revolt against the oppressive features of the Hindu society. Nehru/Ambedkar achieved in 17 years what could not be achieved in the preceding 1,700 years.
(h) Bad news: Nehru empathized with but desisted from reforming Muslim code; he preferred to leave it for a later day and to Muslim leadership. The Supreme Court judgment in Shah Bano case offered an opportunity. Muslim leadership was in support of this reform. However, Rajiv Gandhi, fearing electoral defeat, reversed the judgment by legislation in spite of the protest and resignation of his Muslim minister Arif Mohammed Khan.
(i) Good news: India got the ruler of Kashmir to sign on to join India when Pakistan sent "trained insurgents" to take Kashmir by force. Nehru got the popular Muslim leader Sheikh Abdullah to support accession to India. Nehru held general elections in Kashmir to ensure governments in Kashmir were backed by popular mandate.
(j) Bad news: Democratic principles and civil liberty were severely challenged by Indira Gandhi.
1 Constitutional rights and civil liberty were suspended for two years. However, these were restored by a wiser government that followed.
2 Political leadership in opposition was imprisoned but opposition leadership rose to the challenge; and the electorate rejected Indira's actions by voting her out; her defeat was near total.
3 Political leadership in Congress party itself was weakened; inner party democracy weakened and power shifted to a coterie of advisors and members of the family. The party is yet to recover from this; however, the weakening of the Congress party has strengthened Indian democracy. Since 1989 no party has been able to form government on its own and coalition governments have come to stay widening and deepening democracy but rendering public policy slightly incoherent.
4 Political leadership at state level was weakened; and nominees of "high command" were "elected" by obedient legislatures to power as Chief Ministers. However, strong leaders like N T Rama Rao rose to protect "Teluguwala gopatnamu" and brought back pride to leadership at state level.
5 Government executives were pressured to be "committed" to political agenda (instead of being neutral in a multiparty democracy). Government executives were too glad to co-operate and several of them have turned to political careers after retirement.
6 Judiciary was pressured to be "committed" to political agenda. Though there have been a few instances of favored promotions, the Judiciary has substantially held its independence.
7 Gag rules were enforced on press for two years by Indira Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi attempted, in response to stories of corruption, legislation to jail editors for "scurrilous publication". Fortunately protests in Parliament prevented the legislation.
(k) Bad news: Corruption became endemic in the system. State's control over economic assets, and State's leverage over private enterprise were enhanced ostensibly to fight the rich on behalf of the poor; but with a more obvious consequence of decision-makers in government being able to convert their influence over the direction and timeliness of the decisions into personal or political wealth.
(l) Bad news: India saw two pogroms. Against Sikhs in Delhi in 1984. Against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Both arose due to willed breakdown of law. The PM in Delhi and the CM in Gujarat issued graceless statements that in effect justified the killings. Very unfortunately both reaped electoral rewards.
(m) Bad news: Rising Religious fundamentalism, by Hindus and Muslims, affected peaceful co-existence. A sixteenth century mosque around a Hindu sacred site has been a trigger for religious divide in India for long. Destruction of the mosque by Hindu fundamentalists stepped up the divide. Mahatma Gandhi's advice to a pluralistic society to not seek benefits for the maximum; but maximize benefits for all was sadly forgotten.
(n) Good news: Backward castes who benefited economically from land reforms have started asserting themselves politically (Karunanidhi, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo Prasad Yadav). Dalits found new leadership in Kanshi Ram and Mayawati. Increasing political assertiveness would influence the differences to vanish in the long run.
(o) Bad news: Territorial integrity of India saw a few challenges that stemmed from:
1 Departing British rulers encouraging princely states and hill tribes to remain independent and have a dominion status with Britain so that the empire survives the Raj. Churchill's support to Hyderabad and Nagaland are examples.
2 Political insensitivity of federal government to the pride, claim to common resources, border or leadership as in the case of Punjab
3 Pakistan's agenda to avenge the loss of Bangladesh by supporting religious divide and sponsoring terrorism.
4 Kashmir.
(p) Bad news: The economy was mismanaged for first 35 years and is dogged by a "blow hot blow cold" view for next 25 years.
1 Indian economy, second largest in the world from time immemorial to 18th century stagnated with zero growth from 1857 to 1947 thanks to inept British rule.
2 The young nation pursued socialism (centralized planning, state ownership of big ticket industry, state control over private enterprise etc) for two reasons: Nehru truly believed in it; Indira Gandhi saw an opportunity in it to get defined as pro-poor and win elections. End result: Economy grew at a stately pace of 3.5% pa for the first 35 years.
3 The mid sixties famine was a shock to India. However, the "green revolution" helped India achieve self sufficiency in food production. Wheat production doubled. Rice production grew 50%.
4 Rajiv Gandhi started with right ideas by liberalizing trade, reducing duties, incenting exporters, simplifying license regime, lifting curbs on businesses and reducing tax rates; but reverted to populism closer to election time. (He did not win, however).
5 The 1987 drought affected 200 million people and entailed a few starvation deaths.
(q) Good news: A severe economic crisis forced politics to take back seat and introduce economic reforms in India that pushed India into a growth path.
1 The coalition governments inherited a crisis and had to take "significant" steps in opening up the economy, inviting foreign investment, and liberalizing trade.
2 However, there is a continuing debate between "reformers" and "populists".
3 Economy is growing at a faster 6-8% in the last ten years.
4 There were success stories. The software service exports, aided by Nehru's education system and linguistic policy, Rajiv's emphasis on telecommunication and George Fernandes expulsion of IBM giving rise to indigenous players, grew from $ 0.1 billion in 1990 to $ 13.0 billion in 2004.
We have today a confident and rapidly growing India; well integrated with global markets for goods/services and capital. Democracy has taken a deeper root and some tradition in the country. Several malaises prevail and pose challenges.
Will India survive?
So long as the democractic traditions remain, secularism prevails, citizens remain free, market is respected and civil service/army remain; and Hindi film songs are sung, India will survive" says Guha.
Let me add my contribution to India with a Hindi film song: "so jo kabi aisa ho to kya ho?"
Just dont miss the book. If possible recommend the book to a young Indian.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
josh j
This is a book that I consider a masterpiece from one of the most authoritative sources on the subject. Prof. Guha traces contemporary Indian history from 1946 till 2007, covering key social, political, economic and cultural events and milestones. What is amazing is the wealth of references cited in chapter after chapter, each devoted to and aptly titled to discuss a specific topic.
Frankly, I found the book highly informative, entertaining, unbiased and extremely well written.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and Dr B.R.Ambedkar emerge as the key pillars that guided India's destiny, and secured her future through strong foundations of a true Democracy. Nehru's vision of a modern and vibrant Indian economy, his strong belief in technology and central planning created some of India's finest establishments or the "Temples of Modern India". Integration of over 620 princely states, especially the difficult ones (Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Travancore) in a swift and professional manner by Sardar Patel is an achievement that has stood the test of time. (Goa fell soon after despite Portuguese resistance.) Dr Ambedkar's leadership in framing one of the world's best written free Democratic constitutions (sometimes referred to as the gem on the jewel of world constitutions) makes us Indians, proud citizens of the world's largest Democracy.
At many places in the book I got the impression that Prof. Guha is "pro Nehru". But at the end I realized that it was Prof. Guha's strong belief in the principles of Democracy and Secularism that that has perhaps developed in him a great sense of admiration and respect for Panditji.
The book starts on a tragic note, the division of India into two nations much against the will of Gandhiji, father of the Indian Nation. Despite his best efforts, mad violence takes a huge toll. Thousands perish, and hatred prevails. Even to this day, the two nations are inconvenient neighbors at best. The country was divided on the basis of religion. One nation to become an Islamic state, while the other to adopt a Democratic and Secular constitution, with equal rights and respect for all religions.
This brings us to the core of the book. India has been challenged not only on the dimension of religion, but on five other "axes" of region, caste, creed, language and gender. Each of these factors has been major contentions, and sometimes even threats to national integration. But what is remarkable is the fact that India stands united today as the world's fastest growing democratic nation, despite the forces of Balkanization. European nations, on the other hand share borders with each other based on the same factors that have witnessed a united India, despite challenges and criticisms by skeptics.
Take the reorganization of sates on linguistic basis for example. The supreme sacrifice by Potti Sriramalu demanding the creation of Andhra Pradesh is a lead story. Today, states like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Kerala have proved that such reorganization has helped in "efflorescence of cultural creativity" with major contributions to regional literature, theatre, culture and even cinema.
The attempts by the Central Government to "impose" Hindi as the only official language met with stiff resistance in the mid 1960's. My personal memories as a five year old at that time on this topic are still fresh on my mind. The people, especially in the south resisted, and won. But no one can ever doubt the spirit of nationalism and pride of belongingness to India in any of those who opposed this myopic linguistic policy.
The role of the bureaucracy is well explained. The ICS (The Indian Civil Service, the elite cadre of civil servants created during the British rule) or "Steel Frame", were men of intellect, integrity and professionalism. Sukumar Sen, the first Election Commissioner to conduct the world's biggest experiment in democracy during India's elections on the principles of universal adult franchise is one such example. Sardar Tarlok Singh, the great administrator responsible for redistribution of land in Punjab area based on the concept of "standard acre" and "graded cut" is yet another.
The Indian Armed forces are not far behind. India suffered reverses and humiliation against the Chinese aggression in 1962. Despite diplomatic assurances to the contrary, the Chinese attached and annexed Indian Territory. To quote Mr. H.V.Kamath, an ICS man of the 1930's cadre of "Central Provinces" and an eminent parliamentarian, "for the Chinese who follow Lenin's dictum, promises like pie-crusts are meant to be broken." Personally, a nostalgic statement from my maternal grand uncle who was also a founding father of the Indian Constitution.
The Indian armed forces created history and changed geography in 1971. In a fourteen day war against Pakistan, Bangladesh was born and over 90000 Pakistani troops surrendered unconditionally. By then I had grown up to be an eleven year lad, reading every page of the news paper at 6 AM every day and also to hear the hourly news bulletin on All India Radio on the progress of the Indian forces on both sectors. Memories of Param Vir Chakra, the highest gallantry award during wartime to 2 nd Lt Arun Khetrapal are fresh in my mind. It was a great honor and also a emotional moment to see this valiant Officer's bust at the National Defense Academy at Pune, last month.
Since independence, Prof. Guha traces the gradual corrosion of the "steel frame" of India's elite bureaucracy, due to the atmospheric onslaught of criminalization and corruption of politics. This is perhaps the saddest part of India's journey in the last four decades. The good news is that India's policy decision in 1991 towards a market economy has liberated India's business from stifling controls. The Union Budget of 1991 presented by the hen Finance Minister and the current Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh was a "Magna Carta" for the Indian economy that struggled for nearly four decades under the "License Control Raj".
My admiration of India and the principles of Democracy and Secularism have been further strengthened after reading this book.
The period of nineteen months of "Internal Emergency" from June 1975 till January 1977 is an aberration, or statistically an "outlier" to juddge this great nation.
One thing is for sure. This book is a great read. Without doubt, I chose this as my personal and affectionate gift to my twenty one year old daughter on India's sixtieth Republic day last week. I am sure that this generation and the next will take India to the next higher trajectories of growth, firmly grounded on the nonnegotiable and universal principles of Democracy, Secularism and Human Rights.
Prof Guha, thanks for the great work. For India, the best is yet to come.
Yours ever in the service of the Motherland. Jai Hind.
Frankly, I found the book highly informative, entertaining, unbiased and extremely well written.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and Dr B.R.Ambedkar emerge as the key pillars that guided India's destiny, and secured her future through strong foundations of a true Democracy. Nehru's vision of a modern and vibrant Indian economy, his strong belief in technology and central planning created some of India's finest establishments or the "Temples of Modern India". Integration of over 620 princely states, especially the difficult ones (Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Travancore) in a swift and professional manner by Sardar Patel is an achievement that has stood the test of time. (Goa fell soon after despite Portuguese resistance.) Dr Ambedkar's leadership in framing one of the world's best written free Democratic constitutions (sometimes referred to as the gem on the jewel of world constitutions) makes us Indians, proud citizens of the world's largest Democracy.
At many places in the book I got the impression that Prof. Guha is "pro Nehru". But at the end I realized that it was Prof. Guha's strong belief in the principles of Democracy and Secularism that that has perhaps developed in him a great sense of admiration and respect for Panditji.
The book starts on a tragic note, the division of India into two nations much against the will of Gandhiji, father of the Indian Nation. Despite his best efforts, mad violence takes a huge toll. Thousands perish, and hatred prevails. Even to this day, the two nations are inconvenient neighbors at best. The country was divided on the basis of religion. One nation to become an Islamic state, while the other to adopt a Democratic and Secular constitution, with equal rights and respect for all religions.
This brings us to the core of the book. India has been challenged not only on the dimension of religion, but on five other "axes" of region, caste, creed, language and gender. Each of these factors has been major contentions, and sometimes even threats to national integration. But what is remarkable is the fact that India stands united today as the world's fastest growing democratic nation, despite the forces of Balkanization. European nations, on the other hand share borders with each other based on the same factors that have witnessed a united India, despite challenges and criticisms by skeptics.
Take the reorganization of sates on linguistic basis for example. The supreme sacrifice by Potti Sriramalu demanding the creation of Andhra Pradesh is a lead story. Today, states like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Kerala have proved that such reorganization has helped in "efflorescence of cultural creativity" with major contributions to regional literature, theatre, culture and even cinema.
The attempts by the Central Government to "impose" Hindi as the only official language met with stiff resistance in the mid 1960's. My personal memories as a five year old at that time on this topic are still fresh on my mind. The people, especially in the south resisted, and won. But no one can ever doubt the spirit of nationalism and pride of belongingness to India in any of those who opposed this myopic linguistic policy.
The role of the bureaucracy is well explained. The ICS (The Indian Civil Service, the elite cadre of civil servants created during the British rule) or "Steel Frame", were men of intellect, integrity and professionalism. Sukumar Sen, the first Election Commissioner to conduct the world's biggest experiment in democracy during India's elections on the principles of universal adult franchise is one such example. Sardar Tarlok Singh, the great administrator responsible for redistribution of land in Punjab area based on the concept of "standard acre" and "graded cut" is yet another.
The Indian Armed forces are not far behind. India suffered reverses and humiliation against the Chinese aggression in 1962. Despite diplomatic assurances to the contrary, the Chinese attached and annexed Indian Territory. To quote Mr. H.V.Kamath, an ICS man of the 1930's cadre of "Central Provinces" and an eminent parliamentarian, "for the Chinese who follow Lenin's dictum, promises like pie-crusts are meant to be broken." Personally, a nostalgic statement from my maternal grand uncle who was also a founding father of the Indian Constitution.
The Indian armed forces created history and changed geography in 1971. In a fourteen day war against Pakistan, Bangladesh was born and over 90000 Pakistani troops surrendered unconditionally. By then I had grown up to be an eleven year lad, reading every page of the news paper at 6 AM every day and also to hear the hourly news bulletin on All India Radio on the progress of the Indian forces on both sectors. Memories of Param Vir Chakra, the highest gallantry award during wartime to 2 nd Lt Arun Khetrapal are fresh in my mind. It was a great honor and also a emotional moment to see this valiant Officer's bust at the National Defense Academy at Pune, last month.
Since independence, Prof. Guha traces the gradual corrosion of the "steel frame" of India's elite bureaucracy, due to the atmospheric onslaught of criminalization and corruption of politics. This is perhaps the saddest part of India's journey in the last four decades. The good news is that India's policy decision in 1991 towards a market economy has liberated India's business from stifling controls. The Union Budget of 1991 presented by the hen Finance Minister and the current Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh was a "Magna Carta" for the Indian economy that struggled for nearly four decades under the "License Control Raj".
My admiration of India and the principles of Democracy and Secularism have been further strengthened after reading this book.
The period of nineteen months of "Internal Emergency" from June 1975 till January 1977 is an aberration, or statistically an "outlier" to juddge this great nation.
One thing is for sure. This book is a great read. Without doubt, I chose this as my personal and affectionate gift to my twenty one year old daughter on India's sixtieth Republic day last week. I am sure that this generation and the next will take India to the next higher trajectories of growth, firmly grounded on the nonnegotiable and universal principles of Democracy, Secularism and Human Rights.
Prof Guha, thanks for the great work. For India, the best is yet to come.
Yours ever in the service of the Motherland. Jai Hind.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
julie gosling
This book is: excellent, scholarly, informative, captivating, engaging to read, and VERY long. "India After Gandhi" is divided into five major parts. The mind-set that each section is a separate book may help you deal with the fact you are facing 893 pages. This book is enormous.
Guha is a superb scholar, an excellent writer, and, important to me as a reader, an Indian. Guha's insights into his world give this book greater depth than is offered by the very fine and much shorter histories written by westerners Patrick French and Edward Luce.
Creating and sustaining a democracy composed of disparate peoples has been a difficult and delicate balancing act. India's successful struggle to "do its own thing," in its own way, comes across clearly. Toughness has been required.
Guha's love for the people and places of the subcontinent is evident but he doesn't pull any punches. As I read this book a phrase, frequently hissed through clenched teeth in my childhood, kept flashing through my mind as it almost seems the mantra for New India: "Mother, PLEASE, I'd rather do it MYSELF."
Pursuing an independent, India-focused political path through the land mines of Partition, famine, bloody internal revolts, border disputes, world and local politics, and the paranoia of the Cold War, the story of modern India and its governing body is proof that truth is stranger and more fascinating than fiction.
I especially enjoyed Guha's cynical scholarly perspective. His quote from Harold Isaac pointing out "for Americans in the postwar years there were really only four kinds of Indians: 1) fabulous Indians (2) mystical Indians (3) benighted Indians (4) pathetic Indians" [pg 165], and his recognition that both Indians and Americans are a "preachy people," made me grin. From personal experience, I recognize the validity of his comments and expect backlash for quoting this at any moment.
In spite of reviewers who have sputtered and spit that this is a "Congress Party book," the characteristic tendencies of the Nehru-Gandhi family and their political opponents are carefully delineated, with both sides' good points and serious flaws thoughtfully examined.
Part Four: "The Rise of Populism" [pgs 387-595] is a book-length analysis of Indira Nehru-Gandhi's reign, the opposition, her murder, and the accession of Rajiv Gandhi. It is dispassionate and hardly a paeon to the Congress Party. Guha's conclusion is that if Nehru had been alive during his daughter's days in office, they would have been political opponents rather than allies.[pg 518]
If you are planning a trip to India, a business person, or simply an armchair traveler wanting to learn about contemporary India, Patrick French's book might be the choice for you.
If you are a serious-minded reader and don't mind really sitting still, absorbing, annotating, and studying one book for a week or two, this may be the right book for you.
For me, a quirky scholar and public policy wonk, this book was perfect.
Kim Burdick
Stanton, Delaware
Guha is a superb scholar, an excellent writer, and, important to me as a reader, an Indian. Guha's insights into his world give this book greater depth than is offered by the very fine and much shorter histories written by westerners Patrick French and Edward Luce.
Creating and sustaining a democracy composed of disparate peoples has been a difficult and delicate balancing act. India's successful struggle to "do its own thing," in its own way, comes across clearly. Toughness has been required.
Guha's love for the people and places of the subcontinent is evident but he doesn't pull any punches. As I read this book a phrase, frequently hissed through clenched teeth in my childhood, kept flashing through my mind as it almost seems the mantra for New India: "Mother, PLEASE, I'd rather do it MYSELF."
Pursuing an independent, India-focused political path through the land mines of Partition, famine, bloody internal revolts, border disputes, world and local politics, and the paranoia of the Cold War, the story of modern India and its governing body is proof that truth is stranger and more fascinating than fiction.
I especially enjoyed Guha's cynical scholarly perspective. His quote from Harold Isaac pointing out "for Americans in the postwar years there were really only four kinds of Indians: 1) fabulous Indians (2) mystical Indians (3) benighted Indians (4) pathetic Indians" [pg 165], and his recognition that both Indians and Americans are a "preachy people," made me grin. From personal experience, I recognize the validity of his comments and expect backlash for quoting this at any moment.
In spite of reviewers who have sputtered and spit that this is a "Congress Party book," the characteristic tendencies of the Nehru-Gandhi family and their political opponents are carefully delineated, with both sides' good points and serious flaws thoughtfully examined.
Part Four: "The Rise of Populism" [pgs 387-595] is a book-length analysis of Indira Nehru-Gandhi's reign, the opposition, her murder, and the accession of Rajiv Gandhi. It is dispassionate and hardly a paeon to the Congress Party. Guha's conclusion is that if Nehru had been alive during his daughter's days in office, they would have been political opponents rather than allies.[pg 518]
If you are planning a trip to India, a business person, or simply an armchair traveler wanting to learn about contemporary India, Patrick French's book might be the choice for you.
If you are a serious-minded reader and don't mind really sitting still, absorbing, annotating, and studying one book for a week or two, this may be the right book for you.
For me, a quirky scholar and public policy wonk, this book was perfect.
Kim Burdick
Stanton, Delaware
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
brittany dinardo
If you want to understand the current India - her successes, her failures and her contradictions, this is a must read book. A well written account of events in India since her Independence. While the book does not go very deep into any of the particular event due to huge volume of events to be covered in 60 years of history, you still get a good idea of the key events and what brought them about. I got a very good sense of key factors that played out in the formative years of the new Independent India - leaders who made sure we stay on the path of democracy and secularism, common people who fought and died on the streets to make sure their voice is heard, trends that changed political discourse and brought about the only general emergency that India has ever faced in it's independent history, key conflicts that emerged due to inequality inequality or caste divide, relationships and conflicts with neighboring countries, sources of inspiration and entertainment for the multitude of India and much more! The only place where the author is found wanting is in his more-than-necessary leanings towards Congress and less-than-fair leanings against BJP
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
najiyah
As Guha rightly points out, there aren't works detailing history of India after 1947. Whats more important is this is an unbiased account of events post independence. As a historian, Guha states facts and the results and outcomes of all events rather than speculating and discussing the various possibilities.
I believe this book should be included in the curriculum of Indian schools. I would have definitely appreciated this as my history book in my high school as it correctly captures the journey of India after 1947.
I believe this book should be included in the curriculum of Indian schools. I would have definitely appreciated this as my history book in my high school as it correctly captures the journey of India after 1947.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
cheryl proffitt
Reading this book one is impressed with the making of Indian democracy. India for many years was seen as a desperately poor country which struggled to make even modest gains in increasing its living standards and dealing with issues flowing from its poverty. In more recent times it has seen significant growth especially after it freed up its economy from private controls. Yet this book makes clear that even when economic growth was at a modest level a new nation was being born.
India has many significant achievements since its formation. One of the most remarkable is that it is still a country. India of course had never previously been a country and its inhabitants had diverse cultural traditions and languages. Many prophesised prior to its independence that it would fragment into many countries or that it would soon become a military dictatorship. One of the first challenges of newly independent India was to integrate the old princely states into what was to become a modern country. This was done with what now seems surprising ease. What then was required was to develop a state structure which would be reasonably harmonious. States were constructed on linguistic lines with some cultural homogeneity. Previously the country had developed its own constitution which remains in place to this day.
Whilst the country saw a brief end to democratic government in the 70s with a state of emergency being declared democracy was soon restored. One can say that India's path has not been easy and the country has the potential to slide into violence. There have has been a Maoist insurgency and also two separatist movements which have used guerrilla forces.
In more recent times the BJP has used a crude and ugly nationalism to garnish support. This has been based on the toleration of anti Muslim violence by state governments it controls. The Congress Party also seems to have declined from the once great progressive secular force that it was at the beginning to a crude fiefdom of the Ghandi family.
Yet despite these shortcomings elections continue to be held and the majority of the population see the political system as the way of way of resolving political conflict. Even the BJP has had to work in coalition with other parties and this has moderated the practice of their rule. Castes who have been lower on the pecking order have been able to use the political system to advance their interests to achieve significant improvements in their position. One of the books conclusions is that the communist parties in India are in fact de-facto fronts for lower class special interests rather than being socialist organisations in the Leninist mould.
The book is fascinating as one does not realise the complexity of India's recent history and the sheer complexity of the workings of politics in such a large and diverse country. The book also is well written and although not a journalistic or populist work it is easy to read and something of a page turner.
India has many significant achievements since its formation. One of the most remarkable is that it is still a country. India of course had never previously been a country and its inhabitants had diverse cultural traditions and languages. Many prophesised prior to its independence that it would fragment into many countries or that it would soon become a military dictatorship. One of the first challenges of newly independent India was to integrate the old princely states into what was to become a modern country. This was done with what now seems surprising ease. What then was required was to develop a state structure which would be reasonably harmonious. States were constructed on linguistic lines with some cultural homogeneity. Previously the country had developed its own constitution which remains in place to this day.
Whilst the country saw a brief end to democratic government in the 70s with a state of emergency being declared democracy was soon restored. One can say that India's path has not been easy and the country has the potential to slide into violence. There have has been a Maoist insurgency and also two separatist movements which have used guerrilla forces.
In more recent times the BJP has used a crude and ugly nationalism to garnish support. This has been based on the toleration of anti Muslim violence by state governments it controls. The Congress Party also seems to have declined from the once great progressive secular force that it was at the beginning to a crude fiefdom of the Ghandi family.
Yet despite these shortcomings elections continue to be held and the majority of the population see the political system as the way of way of resolving political conflict. Even the BJP has had to work in coalition with other parties and this has moderated the practice of their rule. Castes who have been lower on the pecking order have been able to use the political system to advance their interests to achieve significant improvements in their position. One of the books conclusions is that the communist parties in India are in fact de-facto fronts for lower class special interests rather than being socialist organisations in the Leninist mould.
The book is fascinating as one does not realise the complexity of India's recent history and the sheer complexity of the workings of politics in such a large and diverse country. The book also is well written and although not a journalistic or populist work it is easy to read and something of a page turner.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
andrea vincent
Ramachandra Guha's book is an excellent recording of the history of India after indepdence. His vivid portrayal of the key players and their interactions as well as the tracing of events that seemed often to spin out of control makes for engrossing reading. As a child of that era, I was able to read and put a number of historical events in perspective and Guha's excellent explanation and clarity helped me make sense of the world I grew up in. The Mundra Case, the Shah Bano case, etc.. these were popular and complicated puzzles for all of us living in those times.
As the author appropriately states, "This is the first draft of post independence Indian History". In my opinion, a post independence history of India written by a very articulate and gifted Indian author with a preference for accurate referencing, citing known sources and recording facts pleasant and unpleasant, far exceeds the accuracy and validity of the dusty, slanted, Anglo-centric Indian history books we read that were forced on us from the British days, written by British historians and authors whose short stays in the great land qualified them to record history for posterity without dissent.
As the author appropriately states, "This is the first draft of post independence Indian History". In my opinion, a post independence history of India written by a very articulate and gifted Indian author with a preference for accurate referencing, citing known sources and recording facts pleasant and unpleasant, far exceeds the accuracy and validity of the dusty, slanted, Anglo-centric Indian history books we read that were forced on us from the British days, written by British historians and authors whose short stays in the great land qualified them to record history for posterity without dissent.
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
joel nunez
India After Gandhi The History of the World's Largest Democracy By Ramachandra Guha
A very good historical account of India as a new nation state.
"India After Gandhi" covers a long period in Indian history from 1947 to 1990. There is an extended post script ("A history of events") that covers the incidents and movements after 1990 to up until 2004. The book ends with author's perception on why India survives regardless of many doomsday predictions that it has encountered throughout its 70 or so years of existence, about its survival as a single nation founded on democracy and secularism.
The story starts with independence, but does not cover the events and personalities that lead up to it. The longest part of the story in the book narrates a very engaging story of a young country trying to define itself, by creating a constitution that guarantees universal adult franchise, building a bureaucracy by extending the British ICS, providing a judiciary that is independent and generally infusing the county with optimism and ideals of a just born country. At the same time the country was dealing with division of the country into two, the "biggest human migration in history" that left many thousands killed and left many more thousands with no property, arduous resettlement of refugees, intricate and complex integration of more than 500 princely states into a country and the mammoth task of building its infrastructure. Author also gives a details account of various insurgencies including Kashmir issue. It is this part that covers era of Nehru and Shasri that is well written and well researched.
The second part deals with how the constitutional democracy slowly transformed into a "populist" democracy under Indira Gandhi and how the emergence of local politics changed the topology of Indian politics. Here Author's research seems to be constrained to Haskar's (A top bureaucrat in Mrs. Gandhi's inner circle) papers and newspaper journalism. The depth of analysis suffers because of the weakness of primary source materials.
The third part, that is aptly named as "history of events" deals with most "current", in terms of history, events in India. They are mostly depended upon journalism rather than any historical research, but in some way present a good analysis of emergence of caste, religion and regional based politics in India
All in all a very good history of India, especially on its inception stage as a nation.
A very good historical account of India as a new nation state.
"India After Gandhi" covers a long period in Indian history from 1947 to 1990. There is an extended post script ("A history of events") that covers the incidents and movements after 1990 to up until 2004. The book ends with author's perception on why India survives regardless of many doomsday predictions that it has encountered throughout its 70 or so years of existence, about its survival as a single nation founded on democracy and secularism.
The story starts with independence, but does not cover the events and personalities that lead up to it. The longest part of the story in the book narrates a very engaging story of a young country trying to define itself, by creating a constitution that guarantees universal adult franchise, building a bureaucracy by extending the British ICS, providing a judiciary that is independent and generally infusing the county with optimism and ideals of a just born country. At the same time the country was dealing with division of the country into two, the "biggest human migration in history" that left many thousands killed and left many more thousands with no property, arduous resettlement of refugees, intricate and complex integration of more than 500 princely states into a country and the mammoth task of building its infrastructure. Author also gives a details account of various insurgencies including Kashmir issue. It is this part that covers era of Nehru and Shasri that is well written and well researched.
The second part deals with how the constitutional democracy slowly transformed into a "populist" democracy under Indira Gandhi and how the emergence of local politics changed the topology of Indian politics. Here Author's research seems to be constrained to Haskar's (A top bureaucrat in Mrs. Gandhi's inner circle) papers and newspaper journalism. The depth of analysis suffers because of the weakness of primary source materials.
The third part, that is aptly named as "history of events" deals with most "current", in terms of history, events in India. They are mostly depended upon journalism rather than any historical research, but in some way present a good analysis of emergence of caste, religion and regional based politics in India
All in all a very good history of India, especially on its inception stage as a nation.
★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
marcia piaskowski
Unfortunately the book is extremely underwhelming for those who have more than passing interest in political history of India. It is consistently biased in favor of a Nehruvian/Congress/Leftist-Marxist viewpoint. Guha's hero-worship of Nehru, a leader with many flaws, is also less than neutral. He also sweeps under the floor the history of corruption in India since independence. At the same time he is extremely biased against Hindu nationalism. Guha's bias has also been criticized in Elst's book "The Argumentative Hindu".
For a history of Indian politics, I'd rather recommend Koenraad's Elst excellent "Decolonizing the Hindu Mind", as well as L.K. Advani's autobiography. For specific topics on Hindu nationalism, the works of Arun Shourie, Sita Ram Goel, Harsh Narain and Ram Swarup are highly recommended.
As another reviewer has said, one should remind Guha the words of the great historian R C Majumdar, who reiterated that "The aim of history is to solely tell the truth, by conscientious finding it out without any respect for individual or communities". But 'India after Gandhi' is dishonest history: there is no objectivity and Guha seems more interested to indoctrinate his readers than to present a neutral book.
For a history of Indian politics, I'd rather recommend Koenraad's Elst excellent "Decolonizing the Hindu Mind", as well as L.K. Advani's autobiography. For specific topics on Hindu nationalism, the works of Arun Shourie, Sita Ram Goel, Harsh Narain and Ram Swarup are highly recommended.
As another reviewer has said, one should remind Guha the words of the great historian R C Majumdar, who reiterated that "The aim of history is to solely tell the truth, by conscientious finding it out without any respect for individual or communities". But 'India after Gandhi' is dishonest history: there is no objectivity and Guha seems more interested to indoctrinate his readers than to present a neutral book.
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
adel ahmadyan
I appreciate Guha for giving factual and as-is version of Indian History for last 6 days. The best part of the book is it's abstinence from judging the actions of our leaders during their time. This gives the readers a sense of the mood of leaders and people at large including the minor opposition, which was generally ignored.
For Indian citizens born after the 1980's their ability to understand and comprehend the Indian history is restricted to the History lessons taught in schools. None of the historic lessons give us a neutral picture. In this regard Guha's work is very impressive. I have been a keen follower of history from school, this book is the closest I came across which gives equal weight to both sides of the stories after Indian Independence.
One striking fact which I heard the very first time, Hindu kar sevaks pulling beard of muslim vendors and forcing them to chant praises for hindu God's on the Godhra railway platform. As far as my memory goes, I haven't heard this version in any mainstream media.
All in all this book deserves a read for anyone trying to get a sense of India over decades after Independence.
For Indian citizens born after the 1980's their ability to understand and comprehend the Indian history is restricted to the History lessons taught in schools. None of the historic lessons give us a neutral picture. In this regard Guha's work is very impressive. I have been a keen follower of history from school, this book is the closest I came across which gives equal weight to both sides of the stories after Indian Independence.
One striking fact which I heard the very first time, Hindu kar sevaks pulling beard of muslim vendors and forcing them to chant praises for hindu God's on the Godhra railway platform. As far as my memory goes, I haven't heard this version in any mainstream media.
All in all this book deserves a read for anyone trying to get a sense of India over decades after Independence.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
roxana
An extremely thorough and moving account of India's history since Independence. The author has meticulously researched the subject, and writes about it in an engaging manner. The book conveys the miracle that is today's India.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
monique aurora
The story of how secular democracy of India was built and how it was held together by the first generation of India's leaders has been told so absorbingly by Guha. This book definitely made me realize how fortunate India was to have Nehru as the first prime minister.
What makes the story so fascinating is the recurring theme in which the country seems to pull itself back just in time from what appears to pundits (Indians or otherwise) to be the brink of collapse and then finds itself at the edge of another precipice. The author is very objective in his narrative, but being an Indian, he is happy and relieved every time he reports the rescue of the country (at least for the time being). It is a bit unfair to label this as "nationalistic".
Modern India can not fail itself or the world. Its cause is too important for the world. It looks like the blessings of its founding fathers and their legacy of values will never let it happen.
Jai Hind! (Even if many people out there may scream "nationalistic")
What makes the story so fascinating is the recurring theme in which the country seems to pull itself back just in time from what appears to pundits (Indians or otherwise) to be the brink of collapse and then finds itself at the edge of another precipice. The author is very objective in his narrative, but being an Indian, he is happy and relieved every time he reports the rescue of the country (at least for the time being). It is a bit unfair to label this as "nationalistic".
Modern India can not fail itself or the world. Its cause is too important for the world. It looks like the blessings of its founding fathers and their legacy of values will never let it happen.
Jai Hind! (Even if many people out there may scream "nationalistic")
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
carly mae
As someone with a strong(ish) knowledge of Indian history from the British occupation to the end of the Raj, I found this book to be extremely helpful in filling in gaps. I enjoyed the discussion of late 20th Century politics even if I'm a bit skeptical of the country's ability to end endemic poverty and under-education in time to overtake China or even Russia over the longer term.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
chris martel
Exceptional book by Ramachandra Guha. His writing style presents a fascinating story of India after independence highlighting its struggles of survial and triumphs of unity. He is unbiased in his views and in presenting the facts. The readers would feel as if they are living through the history as they read this book. As Guha says, no matter how corrupt Indians politicians become, they can only "disturb the tree of (its)democracy but ...not uproot or destroy it." Plan at least two weeks to finish the book - 800 pages or so.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
tonya egeland parton
In one word - this book is fantastic! It is really well-researched, objective, well-paced and informative. Given how India has developed over the last few decades and the sheer complexity of the the various issues the country faced, like forming the constitution, the really tough job that our leaders had to shape a nation's history the right way, the plight of the people then and now, Kashmir, the formation of the states, the supreme challenge in even combining all the princely states under one country, the list is endless and Guha has done justice to it like no one else. The book leaves you with a feeling that whatever you learnt about Indian history in school never even scratched the surface. You can literally imagine the various stages that the country goes through after independence , getting it to unify as it is today. It also gave me the feeling that there must be so much more that happened, too many things to fit into one book - hence so many things that I would love to know but I still don't. I really hope he does come up with a follow up. Again, this really is a must read for every Indian anywhere and also anyone who wants to know about what shaped India to be how it is in current day. Unfortunately, it also makes you realize how sad the history textbooks are in school !
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆
ashenturtle
It is hugely disappointing that author left his leftist ideology influence his writing. The first half of book on Nehru's era largely reads like the text books I had read while growing up in India in late 60's and 70's. Book glosses over inconvenient facts. May be the author should pay some attention to recent surveys on Indian Leaders where Nehru was ranked lower than even his grand son Rajiv Gandhi (which in my view is being unfair to Nehru). Author has recently gone on record stating that Nehru's contribution is being undermined by his successor family members. Every major problem that India faces today as a nation can be traced back to the flawed/failed policies of the Nehru, which the author conveniently ignores.
Author buries the legacy of Rajiv Gandhi in one issue (secularism) while ignoring his contribution to the first tentative steps to liberlize Indian economy from the clutches of Nehruian Socialism.
The chapters on PV Narasimha Rao, Vajpayee primarily deal with Secularism issues totally ignoring the strides India made in Economy, Foreign policy, Defense etc during their era. Millions of indians including me owe our jobs to PVN's economic policies. If India has finally emerged as a force to reckon with, it is primarily due to the economic policies of PVN and Vajpayee governments. It is truly astonishing that the impact the new policies have had on lifting millions of indians out of poverty over the last two decades is not given the importance it deserves in the book. One would have to read books by foreign economists like Robert Shiller (yale university) who called PVN India's Deng Xio Peng. The author buries the legacy of PVN and Vajpayee in the issue of secularism though conveniently not mentioning the the biggest rites of all which took place in Hyderbad right after Nizam fell under Nehru. Ironically, author when probed about about this in a recent interview, commented that Indian constitution was not enabled when the Hyderbad rites took place.
Author buries the legacy of Rajiv Gandhi in one issue (secularism) while ignoring his contribution to the first tentative steps to liberlize Indian economy from the clutches of Nehruian Socialism.
The chapters on PV Narasimha Rao, Vajpayee primarily deal with Secularism issues totally ignoring the strides India made in Economy, Foreign policy, Defense etc during their era. Millions of indians including me owe our jobs to PVN's economic policies. If India has finally emerged as a force to reckon with, it is primarily due to the economic policies of PVN and Vajpayee governments. It is truly astonishing that the impact the new policies have had on lifting millions of indians out of poverty over the last two decades is not given the importance it deserves in the book. One would have to read books by foreign economists like Robert Shiller (yale university) who called PVN India's Deng Xio Peng. The author buries the legacy of PVN and Vajpayee in the issue of secularism though conveniently not mentioning the the biggest rites of all which took place in Hyderbad right after Nizam fell under Nehru. Ironically, author when probed about about this in a recent interview, commented that Indian constitution was not enabled when the Hyderbad rites took place.
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
quinn doyle
India: After Gandhi is both well written and highly accessible. It does a good job of drawing a portrait of modern India in a narrative style. My biggest issue is the lack of maps. If you are not familiar with the geography of India this book will really send you flying to page 753 (the only page with a modern map of India)more than you'd like. Given the fact that India has changed the shape of its provinces since independence it would have been useful to have seen what those lines were and how they change. The same goes for troop movements during war time, population shift maps, election statistic maps, etc. I don't know whether this is the fault of the author or the publisher, but for me its a missed opportunity to make a good book great.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
eric cartier
This comprehensive history of India post Independence manages to be fun to read at the same time as it is thorough and rigorous. It is also surprisingly even-handed about many aspects of Indian history, such as the struggles over the Kashmir or the widespread corrosive impacts of corruption, although the book is clearly written by a proud citizen. But the remarkable story Guha tells--how an improbable collection of disparate peoples, divided by numerous religions, languages and ethnicities, and ruled at independence by the British, French, Portuguese and some 500 assorted princes, managed to form the world's largest democracy, and have it grow and thrive--is dramatic and enlightening.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
shannon mandel
To appreciate this book, you must be interested in a balanced presentation of the many facts that bore on the issues that faced India from 1948 forward. The author writes well; this is fortunate, as otherwise the reader would be snowed under with all of the characters, the political positions, and the maze of details that pertain to the multiple historical subplots.
This is excellent history. It treats the major events with the pages that they deserve. For example, the whole story of Kashmir is described, from the fears that preceded partition through partition, the first war and all the successive battles, the personalities of the major participants, and the political and religious positions. Here, as elsewhere throughout the book, the difference between the sectarian positions of Pakistan and the secular positions of India are explored, along with the consequences. The movements to establish states along linguistic lines is well explored. Likewise, the politics relating to lower castes and treatment of minorities is given plenty of attention. Nehru gets much attention, and although the author recites the criticism that he faced for what were perhaps overly socialistic central government programs, he repeatedly receives credit for taking nonpartisan positions that promoted the greater India welfare, particularly in the areas of preserving rule of law and ensuring the rights of minorities (such as the millions of Muslims in India).
For all of the multiple subjects, the author explores the opposing positions, and places matters in a historical perspective. Time after time it is fascinating to see how various Indian leaders' views were shaped by their respective different backgrounds, and how biases prevented them from supporting what, in hindsight, appeared to be correct solutions. There is much here that makes one think of American politics, and our own inabilities to avoid arguing from highly partisan positions.
Ted Preston, author of Judging the Lawyers
This is excellent history. It treats the major events with the pages that they deserve. For example, the whole story of Kashmir is described, from the fears that preceded partition through partition, the first war and all the successive battles, the personalities of the major participants, and the political and religious positions. Here, as elsewhere throughout the book, the difference between the sectarian positions of Pakistan and the secular positions of India are explored, along with the consequences. The movements to establish states along linguistic lines is well explored. Likewise, the politics relating to lower castes and treatment of minorities is given plenty of attention. Nehru gets much attention, and although the author recites the criticism that he faced for what were perhaps overly socialistic central government programs, he repeatedly receives credit for taking nonpartisan positions that promoted the greater India welfare, particularly in the areas of preserving rule of law and ensuring the rights of minorities (such as the millions of Muslims in India).
For all of the multiple subjects, the author explores the opposing positions, and places matters in a historical perspective. Time after time it is fascinating to see how various Indian leaders' views were shaped by their respective different backgrounds, and how biases prevented them from supporting what, in hindsight, appeared to be correct solutions. There is much here that makes one think of American politics, and our own inabilities to avoid arguing from highly partisan positions.
Ted Preston, author of Judging the Lawyers
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
jenny k
A well-written, interesting book, Ramachandra Guha bravely attempts to encompass sixty-plus years of the history of the world's largest democracy. I read this book for a class I took on the history of contemporary India, and while there are some problems, like the emphasis on the nation and thus a perspective bias when discussing groups such as the Nagas or Sikhs, overall this book is a fascinating, intelligent read any bookshelf would be thrilled to have on its wooden surface.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
emily barton
For context, history would be the one exam where i would unfailingly cry the previous night. This book, on the other hand, made me stay up way past bedtime, and read thhrough all 764 pages in a week. The book is that good, beginning in 1947, laying a framework to understand India, and then proceeding to fill in that framework with 60 years of politics, economics, and entertainment.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
sara thompson
This is an exceptionally well written book. It covers the formative period of the Indian democratic system from a few year before partition (1947) to present.
As an Indian, born in 1979, and educated in the country, I never had an opportunity to learn the rich details of the years since 1947 in school or outside it. As the author correctly points out in the book, India's school education curriculum does not find this recent history to be "historical" enough to be taught just yet.
Overall, an eye opening book about Indian politics, society, economy and development.
As an Indian, born in 1979, and educated in the country, I never had an opportunity to learn the rich details of the years since 1947 in school or outside it. As the author correctly points out in the book, India's school education curriculum does not find this recent history to be "historical" enough to be taught just yet.
Overall, an eye opening book about Indian politics, society, economy and development.
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆
kasper
I read this book while traveling in India, hoping that it would give some insight into current events. On the one hand, it was very helpful in identifying and explaining the various political parties and interest groups that are present in India and highlighted many internal conflicts in the country that are not readily apparent to a visitor. However, in a larger sense, the book is nothing more than a thinly disguised cheer leading exercise for Nehru and re-ordering of events designed to avoid any critical examination of the policies of Nehru and his political heirs over that last sixty years - low growth; continuing caste strife; failure to resolve border disputes with neighbors; under-education; under-investment in infrastructure; rampant corruption; etc. In the author's view, all policy mistakes can be forgiven because without Nehru, India would not have survived since independence as a single country. Perhaps the author should concentrate his next efforts on political greatness exhibited by the leaders in Zimbabwe.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
carey manuel
This is a scholarly written treatise. A historical account of geo-political events with follow through of its impacts is quite refreshing. The book is an authoritative resource for diverse wealth of historical information about political dynamics impacting India's wide ranging and unique democratic processes. The book clearly accentuates uniqueness of Indian democracy and its fragile and at the same time tenacious tentacles holding the union of Indian states together. A must read for serious world political history reader. It is easy to read (italicized use of Indian words and phrases helps bring out native flavor, but in no way it hampers reading pleasure).
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
elzibub
Indian history switches off at the intervening night of August 14 and 15, 1947. Guha is the Ray of light, as it were. He pilots the story and the idea of free India, with his hope to knit a honest anecdote, and he fabulously victors in it hands down. Jockeying Indian chaotic path post freedom and its climb as a world power is no mean task. And this book grabs four stars, easily.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
norbert tran
For context, history would be the one exam where i would unfailingly cry the previous night. This book, on the other hand, made me stay up way past bedtime, and read thhrough all 764 pages in a week. The book is that good, beginning in 1947, laying a framework to understand India, and then proceeding to fill in that framework with 60 years of politics, economics, and entertainment.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
hanna thornberg
This is an exceptionally well written book. It covers the formative period of the Indian democratic system from a few year before partition (1947) to present.
As an Indian, born in 1979, and educated in the country, I never had an opportunity to learn the rich details of the years since 1947 in school or outside it. As the author correctly points out in the book, India's school education curriculum does not find this recent history to be "historical" enough to be taught just yet.
Overall, an eye opening book about Indian politics, society, economy and development.
As an Indian, born in 1979, and educated in the country, I never had an opportunity to learn the rich details of the years since 1947 in school or outside it. As the author correctly points out in the book, India's school education curriculum does not find this recent history to be "historical" enough to be taught just yet.
Overall, an eye opening book about Indian politics, society, economy and development.
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆
dayle fogarty
I read this book while traveling in India, hoping that it would give some insight into current events. On the one hand, it was very helpful in identifying and explaining the various political parties and interest groups that are present in India and highlighted many internal conflicts in the country that are not readily apparent to a visitor. However, in a larger sense, the book is nothing more than a thinly disguised cheer leading exercise for Nehru and re-ordering of events designed to avoid any critical examination of the policies of Nehru and his political heirs over that last sixty years - low growth; continuing caste strife; failure to resolve border disputes with neighbors; under-education; under-investment in infrastructure; rampant corruption; etc. In the author's view, all policy mistakes can be forgiven because without Nehru, India would not have survived since independence as a single country. Perhaps the author should concentrate his next efforts on political greatness exhibited by the leaders in Zimbabwe.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
viceshley
This is a scholarly written treatise. A historical account of geo-political events with follow through of its impacts is quite refreshing. The book is an authoritative resource for diverse wealth of historical information about political dynamics impacting India's wide ranging and unique democratic processes. The book clearly accentuates uniqueness of Indian democracy and its fragile and at the same time tenacious tentacles holding the union of Indian states together. A must read for serious world political history reader. It is easy to read (italicized use of Indian words and phrases helps bring out native flavor, but in no way it hampers reading pleasure).
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
sarahcz
Great book and terrific insight into `Indian history after Gandhi' and how India and its democracy survived and evolved to what it is today. Ramchandra Guha wrote the book in a very objective manner. Also, various anecdotes and quotes from newspapers and personalities of bygone era make this book an interesting read.
Author's style is simple and lucid not pedagogy.
I recommend this book for any student/observer of Indian history or world political history in general. After reading this book, one would appreciate Indian democracy and understand why much needed social and economic equality has been slow and tough to achieve in India. This book is a must read for all the `armchair' critics of India.
--Ajay K. Hari
Author's style is simple and lucid not pedagogy.
I recommend this book for any student/observer of Indian history or world political history in general. After reading this book, one would appreciate Indian democracy and understand why much needed social and economic equality has been slow and tough to achieve in India. This book is a must read for all the `armchair' critics of India.
--Ajay K. Hari
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
david lomas
VERY WELL WRITTEN READABLE BOOK.GIVES DEEP INSIGHT TO INDIAN SOCIETY PROBLEMS.ECONOMIC SOCIAL ISSUES AND CAHNGES ADAPTATION AFTER INDEPENCE AND PARTION.ENCOURAGED BY THE FACT THAT INDIAN IS BEGINNING TO WALK .BUT I THINK IT SHOULD NOT FOLLOW WEST ON EVERY THING.SHOULD LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES. HENCE MORE EMPHASIS ON EDUCATION ,ENVOINMENT, WELL BEING OF ALL THE PEOPLE RATHER THAN CERTIAN PERCENTAGE, FAMILY STRUCTURE UP KEEP ,LESS MATRIALISM ,LESS RELIGION, MUCH MORE SCIENTFIC UNDERSTANDING HUAMN AND ITS ENVOIRNMENT . WE ARE PRODUCTS OF OUR ENVOINMENT AND INTERACTION TO THAT ENVOINMENT WHAT WE BECOME. I DONT KNOW WHO SAID THIS.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
andrada teodora pencea
Anyone interested knowing about India, this is the best book.
and if you're an Indian, you'll like it even more.
Only thing which I didn't like about this books is title ( sounds dull ).
and if you're an Indian, you'll like it even more.
Only thing which I didn't like about this books is title ( sounds dull ).
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆
joanie
Ramachandra Guha, Stanford/Yale professor turned writer, has done an outstanding job covering the history of India since 1947. The book is very engaging and informative. If you want to understand the evolution of modern India, you ought to read this book.
India's journey in the last sixty years could be described as a journey between two books: from Katherine Mayo's "Mother India" (dismissed by Mahatma Gandhi as a drain inspector's report) to Thomas Friedman's "The World is flat" (with adulations about a confident and growing economy).
The journey has several good and bad milestones:
(a) Good news: The country dealt with the messy partition - a great human tragedy that displaced 8 million people. Handling the bi-directional migration in Punjab was easier than the uni-directional immigration in Bengal.
(b) Good news: India, the political entity was created by unifying the various bits of the jigsaw puzzle left behind by the British; a country that the nation never had in several thousand years of history .
(c) Good news: A style of government based on rule of law, secular principles and a stable constitution was fashioned. A constitution based on liberty, democracy, emancipation and equality was created. Democracy has been the biggest strength of India in the last 60 years.
(d) Good news: The country was re-organized into linguistic states. Linguistic bonding created strong states under a federal structure and is one of the reasons why democracy has had a deep rooted existence in India.
(e) Good news: Nehru set in place political sensitivity that a heterogeneous population requires to hold the country together. Muslims in India went on to play a great role in India.
(f) Good news: Nehru laid the foundation for democratic traditions by conducting general elections every five years by universal adult franchise. Popular mandate dictated public policy and politics. Transfer of government from one administration to another was civilized.
(g) Good news: The Hindu personal code was reformed and standardized; a true revolt against the oppressive features of the Hindu society. Nehru/Ambedkar achieved in 17 years what could not be achieved in the preceding 1,700 years.
(h) Bad news: Nehru empathized with but desisted from reforming Muslim code; he preferred to leave it for a later day and to Muslim leadership. The Supreme Court judgment in Shah Bano case offered an opportunity. Muslim leadership was in support of this reform. However, Rajiv Gandhi, fearing electoral defeat, reversed the judgment by legislation in spite of the protest and resignation of his Muslim minister Arif Mohammed Khan.
(i) Good news: India got the ruler of Kashmir to sign on to join India when Pakistan sent "trained insurgents" to take Kashmir by force. Nehru got the popular Muslim leader Sheikh Abdullah to support accession to India. Nehru held general elections in Kashmir to ensure governments in Kashmir were backed by popular mandate.
(j) Bad news: Democratic principles and civil liberty were severely challenged by Indira Gandhi.
1 Constitutional rights and civil liberty were suspended for two years. However, these were restored by a wiser government that followed.
2 Political leadership in opposition was imprisoned but opposition leadership rose to the challenge; and the electorate rejected Indira's actions by voting her out; her defeat was near total.
3 Political leadership in Congress party itself was weakened; inner party democracy weakened and power shifted to a coterie of advisors and members of the family. The party is yet to recover from this; however, the weakening of the Congress party has strengthened Indian democracy. Since 1989 no party has been able to form government on its own and coalition governments have come to stay widening and deepening democracy but rendering public policy slightly incoherent.
4 Political leadership at state level was weakened; and nominees of "high command" were "elected" by obedient legislatures to power as Chief Ministers. However, strong leaders like N T Rama Rao rose to protect "Teluguwala gopatnamu" and brought back pride to leadership at state level.
5 Government executives were pressured to be "committed" to political agenda (instead of being neutral in a multiparty democracy). Government executives were too glad to co-operate and several of them have turned to political careers after retirement.
6 Judiciary was pressured to be "committed" to political agenda. Though there have been a few instances of favored promotions, the Judiciary has substantially held its independence.
7 Gag rules were enforced on press for two years by Indira Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi attempted, in response to stories of corruption, legislation to jail editors for "scurrilous publication". Fortunately protests in Parliament prevented the legislation.
(k) Bad news: Corruption became endemic in the system. State's control over economic assets, and State's leverage over private enterprise were enhanced ostensibly to fight the rich on behalf of the poor; but with a more obvious consequence of decision-makers in government being able to convert their influence over the direction and timeliness of the decisions into personal or political wealth.
(l) Bad news: India saw two pogroms. Against Sikhs in Delhi in 1984. Against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Both arose due to willed breakdown of law. The PM in Delhi and the CM in Gujarat issued graceless statements that in effect justified the killings. Very unfortunately both reaped electoral rewards.
(m) Bad news: Rising Religious fundamentalism, by Hindus and Muslims, affected peaceful co-existence. A sixteenth century mosque around a Hindu sacred site has been a trigger for religious divide in India for long. Destruction of the mosque by Hindu fundamentalists stepped up the divide. Mahatma Gandhi's advice to a pluralistic society to not seek benefits for the maximum; but maximize benefits for all was sadly forgotten.
(n) Good news: Backward castes who benefited economically from land reforms have started asserting themselves politically (Karunanidhi, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo Prasad Yadav). Dalits found new leadership in Kanshi Ram and Mayawati. Increasing political assertiveness would influence the differences to vanish in the long run.
(o) Bad news: Territorial integrity of India saw a few challenges that stemmed from:
1 Departing British rulers encouraging princely states and hill tribes to remain independent and have a dominion status with Britain so that the empire survives the Raj. Churchill's support to Hyderabad and Nagaland are examples.
2 Political insensitivity of federal government to the pride, claim to common resources, border or leadership as in the case of Punjab
3 Pakistan's agenda to avenge the loss of Bangladesh by supporting religious divide and sponsoring terrorism.
4 Kashmir.
(p) Bad news: The economy was mismanaged for first 35 years and is dogged by a "blow hot blow cold" view for next 25 years.
1 Indian economy, second largest in the world from time immemorial to 18th century stagnated with zero growth from 1857 to 1947 thanks to inept British rule.
2 The young nation pursued socialism (centralized planning, state ownership of big ticket industry, state control over private enterprise etc) for two reasons: Nehru truly believed in it; Indira Gandhi saw an opportunity in it to get defined as pro-poor and win elections. End result: Economy grew at a stately pace of 3.5% pa for the first 35 years.
3 The mid sixties famine was a shock to India. However, the "green revolution" helped India achieve self sufficiency in food production. Wheat production doubled. Rice production grew 50%.
4 Rajiv Gandhi started with right ideas by liberalizing trade, reducing duties, incenting exporters, simplifying license regime, lifting curbs on businesses and reducing tax rates; but reverted to populism closer to election time. (He did not win, however).
5 The 1987 drought affected 200 million people and entailed a few starvation deaths.
(q) Good news: A severe economic crisis forced politics to take back seat and introduce economic reforms in India that pushed India into a growth path.
1 The coalition governments inherited a crisis and had to take "significant" steps in opening up the economy, inviting foreign investment, and liberalizing trade.
2 However, there is a continuing debate between "reformers" and "populists".
3 Economy is growing at a faster 6-8% in the last ten years.
4 There were success stories. The software service exports, aided by Nehru's education system and linguistic policy, Rajiv's emphasis on telecommunication and George Fernandes expulsion of IBM giving rise to indigenous players, grew from $ 0.1 billion in 1990 to $ 13.0 billion in 2004.
We have today a confident and rapidly growing India; well integrated with global markets for goods/services and capital. Democracy has taken a deeper root and some tradition in the country. Several malaises prevail and pose challenges.
Will India survive?
So long as the democractic traditions remain, secularism prevails, citizens remain free, market is respected and civil service/army remain; and Hindi film songs are sung, India will survive" says Guha.
Let me add my contribution to India with a Hindi film song: "so jo kabi aisa ho to kya ho?"
Just dont miss the book. If possible recommend the book to a young Indian.
India's journey in the last sixty years could be described as a journey between two books: from Katherine Mayo's "Mother India" (dismissed by Mahatma Gandhi as a drain inspector's report) to Thomas Friedman's "The World is flat" (with adulations about a confident and growing economy).
The journey has several good and bad milestones:
(a) Good news: The country dealt with the messy partition - a great human tragedy that displaced 8 million people. Handling the bi-directional migration in Punjab was easier than the uni-directional immigration in Bengal.
(b) Good news: India, the political entity was created by unifying the various bits of the jigsaw puzzle left behind by the British; a country that the nation never had in several thousand years of history .
(c) Good news: A style of government based on rule of law, secular principles and a stable constitution was fashioned. A constitution based on liberty, democracy, emancipation and equality was created. Democracy has been the biggest strength of India in the last 60 years.
(d) Good news: The country was re-organized into linguistic states. Linguistic bonding created strong states under a federal structure and is one of the reasons why democracy has had a deep rooted existence in India.
(e) Good news: Nehru set in place political sensitivity that a heterogeneous population requires to hold the country together. Muslims in India went on to play a great role in India.
(f) Good news: Nehru laid the foundation for democratic traditions by conducting general elections every five years by universal adult franchise. Popular mandate dictated public policy and politics. Transfer of government from one administration to another was civilized.
(g) Good news: The Hindu personal code was reformed and standardized; a true revolt against the oppressive features of the Hindu society. Nehru/Ambedkar achieved in 17 years what could not be achieved in the preceding 1,700 years.
(h) Bad news: Nehru empathized with but desisted from reforming Muslim code; he preferred to leave it for a later day and to Muslim leadership. The Supreme Court judgment in Shah Bano case offered an opportunity. Muslim leadership was in support of this reform. However, Rajiv Gandhi, fearing electoral defeat, reversed the judgment by legislation in spite of the protest and resignation of his Muslim minister Arif Mohammed Khan.
(i) Good news: India got the ruler of Kashmir to sign on to join India when Pakistan sent "trained insurgents" to take Kashmir by force. Nehru got the popular Muslim leader Sheikh Abdullah to support accession to India. Nehru held general elections in Kashmir to ensure governments in Kashmir were backed by popular mandate.
(j) Bad news: Democratic principles and civil liberty were severely challenged by Indira Gandhi.
1 Constitutional rights and civil liberty were suspended for two years. However, these were restored by a wiser government that followed.
2 Political leadership in opposition was imprisoned but opposition leadership rose to the challenge; and the electorate rejected Indira's actions by voting her out; her defeat was near total.
3 Political leadership in Congress party itself was weakened; inner party democracy weakened and power shifted to a coterie of advisors and members of the family. The party is yet to recover from this; however, the weakening of the Congress party has strengthened Indian democracy. Since 1989 no party has been able to form government on its own and coalition governments have come to stay widening and deepening democracy but rendering public policy slightly incoherent.
4 Political leadership at state level was weakened; and nominees of "high command" were "elected" by obedient legislatures to power as Chief Ministers. However, strong leaders like N T Rama Rao rose to protect "Teluguwala gopatnamu" and brought back pride to leadership at state level.
5 Government executives were pressured to be "committed" to political agenda (instead of being neutral in a multiparty democracy). Government executives were too glad to co-operate and several of them have turned to political careers after retirement.
6 Judiciary was pressured to be "committed" to political agenda. Though there have been a few instances of favored promotions, the Judiciary has substantially held its independence.
7 Gag rules were enforced on press for two years by Indira Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi attempted, in response to stories of corruption, legislation to jail editors for "scurrilous publication". Fortunately protests in Parliament prevented the legislation.
(k) Bad news: Corruption became endemic in the system. State's control over economic assets, and State's leverage over private enterprise were enhanced ostensibly to fight the rich on behalf of the poor; but with a more obvious consequence of decision-makers in government being able to convert their influence over the direction and timeliness of the decisions into personal or political wealth.
(l) Bad news: India saw two pogroms. Against Sikhs in Delhi in 1984. Against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Both arose due to willed breakdown of law. The PM in Delhi and the CM in Gujarat issued graceless statements that in effect justified the killings. Very unfortunately both reaped electoral rewards.
(m) Bad news: Rising Religious fundamentalism, by Hindus and Muslims, affected peaceful co-existence. A sixteenth century mosque around a Hindu sacred site has been a trigger for religious divide in India for long. Destruction of the mosque by Hindu fundamentalists stepped up the divide. Mahatma Gandhi's advice to a pluralistic society to not seek benefits for the maximum; but maximize benefits for all was sadly forgotten.
(n) Good news: Backward castes who benefited economically from land reforms have started asserting themselves politically (Karunanidhi, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo Prasad Yadav). Dalits found new leadership in Kanshi Ram and Mayawati. Increasing political assertiveness would influence the differences to vanish in the long run.
(o) Bad news: Territorial integrity of India saw a few challenges that stemmed from:
1 Departing British rulers encouraging princely states and hill tribes to remain independent and have a dominion status with Britain so that the empire survives the Raj. Churchill's support to Hyderabad and Nagaland are examples.
2 Political insensitivity of federal government to the pride, claim to common resources, border or leadership as in the case of Punjab
3 Pakistan's agenda to avenge the loss of Bangladesh by supporting religious divide and sponsoring terrorism.
4 Kashmir.
(p) Bad news: The economy was mismanaged for first 35 years and is dogged by a "blow hot blow cold" view for next 25 years.
1 Indian economy, second largest in the world from time immemorial to 18th century stagnated with zero growth from 1857 to 1947 thanks to inept British rule.
2 The young nation pursued socialism (centralized planning, state ownership of big ticket industry, state control over private enterprise etc) for two reasons: Nehru truly believed in it; Indira Gandhi saw an opportunity in it to get defined as pro-poor and win elections. End result: Economy grew at a stately pace of 3.5% pa for the first 35 years.
3 The mid sixties famine was a shock to India. However, the "green revolution" helped India achieve self sufficiency in food production. Wheat production doubled. Rice production grew 50%.
4 Rajiv Gandhi started with right ideas by liberalizing trade, reducing duties, incenting exporters, simplifying license regime, lifting curbs on businesses and reducing tax rates; but reverted to populism closer to election time. (He did not win, however).
5 The 1987 drought affected 200 million people and entailed a few starvation deaths.
(q) Good news: A severe economic crisis forced politics to take back seat and introduce economic reforms in India that pushed India into a growth path.
1 The coalition governments inherited a crisis and had to take "significant" steps in opening up the economy, inviting foreign investment, and liberalizing trade.
2 However, there is a continuing debate between "reformers" and "populists".
3 Economy is growing at a faster 6-8% in the last ten years.
4 There were success stories. The software service exports, aided by Nehru's education system and linguistic policy, Rajiv's emphasis on telecommunication and George Fernandes expulsion of IBM giving rise to indigenous players, grew from $ 0.1 billion in 1990 to $ 13.0 billion in 2004.
We have today a confident and rapidly growing India; well integrated with global markets for goods/services and capital. Democracy has taken a deeper root and some tradition in the country. Several malaises prevail and pose challenges.
Will India survive?
So long as the democractic traditions remain, secularism prevails, citizens remain free, market is respected and civil service/army remain; and Hindi film songs are sung, India will survive" says Guha.
Let me add my contribution to India with a Hindi film song: "so jo kabi aisa ho to kya ho?"
Just dont miss the book. If possible recommend the book to a young Indian.
Please RateThe History of the World's Largest Democracy - India After Gandhi