IndiaStar: A Literary-Art Magazine
Should we speak of the idea of a nation in the singular or the plural? In America, we have the liberal and the conservative visions and also those of the techies and of various religious and ideological groups. The rules of the civic discourse allow the votaries of these visions to sway the uncommitted. It is not any particular vision that defines America but rather the ceaseless competition amongst them. It helps that there is much overlap amongst the various visions. Nevertheless, what is unchanging is the basic fabric of laws.
In earlier generations, there is no doubt that nascent national states followed a deliberate policy of imposing uniformity of religious belief and common language. Sometimes racial segregation was imposed. The natives in America were herded into reservations; French speakers were not allowed to use their mother tongue in schools in Louisiana. But as the political systems matured it was found that the centrifugal forces of language and ethnic identity could be counterbalanced by the force of shared history and the promise of economic advancement.
One would imagine that India's situation is similar to that of America. If anything the multiplicity of visions must be greater in India given that the collective memories of the various communities run deep. One can speak of the idea of the Bharatvarsha of the Puranic imagination, the Hindustan of the Mughal empire, and more recent Indias of the Marxists, the Congressmen, the socialists, the Muslim League, the Shiv Sena, the BJP, and so on.
Given the complexity of the problem, it is surprising, therefore, that Sunil Khilnani in his book ``The Idea of India'' has chosen to deal with just a few elements of this mosaic. His book is primarily a paean to the role of Jawaharlal Nehru in shaping the economy, the politics, and the development of India in the years after independence and the evolution of this legacy at the hands of his successors. He is right in saying that Nehru's importance ``lay not in a dissemination of democratic idealism but in its establishment of the state at the core of India's society. The state was enlarged, its ambitions inflated, and it was transformed from a distant, alien object into one that aspired to infiltrate the everyday lives of Indians, proclaiming itself responsible for everything they could desire: jobs, ration cards, educational places, security, cultural recognition.''
Khilnani fails to notice, however, that this recipe of unprecedented control over the lives of the citizenry had within it the seeds for future disasters. Khilnani prefers to make a distinction between the policies of Nehru and his successors. But the insults that were heaped upon the institutions of the country by Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and V.P. Singh were just the next steps in the process set in motion by Nehru.
The system created by Nehru lacked proper checks and balances and before too long---in fact in Nehru's own lifetime---assorted politicians, civil servants, and others made venality and corruption the way of public life. Just consider the record of Pratap Singh Kairon and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, the chief ministers of the Punjab and Kashmir.
Nehru had no experience as an administrator. He sincerely believed that socialism and a centralized polity were the only way for progress. With a total monopoly over the media and a system of patronage, he was able to win the support of most intellectuals. This is not surprising when you consider that even Lenin and Stalin, in the days of the worst purges, had the support of their intellectuals.
Khilnani description of the politics of India is through the simplistic opposition of Nehruvian socialism versus Hindu communalism. This good versus bad routine cannot explain why people are leaving the Congress and the other left parties in droves. Just maybe the disillusionment is with the way the left has controlled the discourse and defined itsidea of India as the only valid one. So opponents of this view, be they secular humanists, economic or social conservatives, or activists for a radical transformation of society are casting around for new vehicles of political change. The left in India is increasingly seen as an instrument of the status quo of corruption and the bureaucratic state. The opponents of the Nehruvian state may include odious groups but they also are those who seek a true secular state where the government separates itself from all religious concerns. As things stand, the government has repeatedly intruded into the affairs of the temples, taking over the management of many of them, and provided grants to religious schools in a selective manner.
The opponents count amongst them also those who want to dismantle the bureaucratic framework of the state. The Indian Constitution ushered in by Nehru was basically the colonial system of administration sans the Englishmen. The only difference was that the people are given a choice every few years to choose their representatives at the centre and the state levels. There was no democracy at the district level or in towns or villages. The IAS officer, as the District Magistrate, serves like the British Resident of yore.
Khilnani does not present the views of the thoughtful critics of the left. His bibliogrpahy has no mention of the prolific writings of Arun Shourie, one of the most influential journalists of modern India, or of Madhu Kishwar, the writer on women's issues.
In the past half-century, India has slipped below most other nations in indices of progress. It is astonishing then that experts like Khilnani refuse to look where the fault lies. If you control the discourse and the opponents are painted as worse than the rulers, what choice does an open-minded person have in taking sides! This is the reason why most Western observers still believe that the Congress Party is still the best bet for India's progress.
Khilnani's book is an engagingly written "politically correct" essay on recent India. It does not capture the real complexities of the events. For that one should turn to the infinitely better ``No Full Stops in India'' by Mark Tully or ``India: A Million Mutinies Now'' by V.S. Naipaul. |