What do you think?
Rate this book
Patriots and Partisans - PB
BRAND NEW, Exactly same ISBN as listed, Please double check ISBN carefully before ordering.
352 pages, Paperback
First published November 10, 2012
110 people are currently reading
2031 people want to read
About the author
Ramachandra Guha
111 books1,610 followersRamachandra Guha was born in Dehradun in 1958, and educated in Delhi and Calcutta. He has taught at the University of Oslo, Stanford, and Yale, and at the Indian Institute of Science. He has been a Fellow of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, and also served as the Indo-American Community Chair Visiting Professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
After a peripatetic academic career, with five jobs in ten years on three continents, Guha settled down to become a full-time writer based in Bangalore. His books cover a wide range of themes, including a global history of environmentalism, a biography of an anthropologist-activist, a social history of Indian cricket, and a social history of Himalayan peasants.
Guha’s books and essays have been translated into more than twenty languages. The prizes they have won include the U.K. Cricket Society’s Literary Award and the Leopold-Hidy Prize of the American Society of Environmental History.
After a peripatetic academic career, with five jobs in ten years on three continents, Guha settled down to become a full-time writer based in Bangalore. His books cover a wide range of themes, including a global history of environmentalism, a biography of an anthropologist-activist, a social history of Indian cricket, and a social history of Himalayan peasants.
Guha’s books and essays have been translated into more than twenty languages. The prizes they have won include the U.K. Cricket Society’s Literary Award and the Leopold-Hidy Prize of the American Society of Environmental History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 95 reviews
March 19, 2013
To someone who is well-versed with the nitty-gritty of Indian political panorama and exceedingly vigilant to the chimerical democratic garb that Indian politics adorn, barring a few nostalgic personal textual pieces, this book is akin to reading newspaper articles and magazines scouting for scholarly debates over eloquent verses surpassing tapered attitudes to a universal perceptive of secularists farce under autocratic, fascists and pluralists mirages. To the unknown it's a revelation.
June 4, 2018
It is always fun to read Ram Guha.
February 7, 2017
Having read previously the author's scholarly historical narratives in "India After Gandhi", and the brilliant editorial commentaries of the selected writings of the "Makers of Modern India", I started this book with the pre-determined bias that I would like it. The liberal Nehurvian views of Guha resonates that of mine, and hence, my expectations from this book was, if not gaining new confirming information, then at least reaffirmations of my own thought stream. The book fully meets that expectation.
The essays cover many of the contemporary themes prevailing Indian political discourses - the changing political dynamics with time, the sycophancy and dynastic politics in Congress, the Hindutva trolls, the declining significance of the left, and the recent revolutions of anti-corruption movements, the fall and decline of haloed perceptions around Nehru and Gandhi, etc. All these essays, hailing the pluralism and argumentativeness of Indian intelligentsia, provide very liberal takes on the issues, trying best not to be very one-sided and judgmental. The last few chapters on libraries, magazines, press and a bookshop, despite my love for the theme, felt out of place and only put there to fill pages for a full length book.
The essays cover many of the contemporary themes prevailing Indian political discourses - the changing political dynamics with time, the sycophancy and dynastic politics in Congress, the Hindutva trolls, the declining significance of the left, and the recent revolutions of anti-corruption movements, the fall and decline of haloed perceptions around Nehru and Gandhi, etc. All these essays, hailing the pluralism and argumentativeness of Indian intelligentsia, provide very liberal takes on the issues, trying best not to be very one-sided and judgmental. The last few chapters on libraries, magazines, press and a bookshop, despite my love for the theme, felt out of place and only put there to fill pages for a full length book.
January 1, 2020
This is a collection of various articles published by the eminent historian and author, Ramachandra Guha, in various newspapers and magazines. It covers issues after the independence of India which challenged its unity and existence.
The articles in the first half of the book are of high academic quality but this deteriorates in the second half. The last few articles are personal experiences which don't amount to much substance to the reader and seem pretty trivial.
Buy it for the first half but also don't buy it for the second half.
The articles in the first half of the book are of high academic quality but this deteriorates in the second half. The last few articles are personal experiences which don't amount to much substance to the reader and seem pretty trivial.
Buy it for the first half but also don't buy it for the second half.
January 30, 2013
Like Guha's other books of essays.
1. Smooth, anecdotal writing. I have read each of Guha's books of essays on vacation. I haven't intended to read them but have begun and gone on reading.
2. Sociopolitical bellelettrism, basically.
3. Guha calls himself a historian but is actually a story-teller; he has no theses for the movement of history, instead consistently focusing overmuch on individual figures. This obviously works better in a book of essays than in a 'history' like INDIA AFTER GANDHI. His commonsensical arguments centered on the individuals are probably why he is so popular.
4. Rather than tracing systemically why things unfolded as they did, Guha gives elder-brotherly post-facto advice to leftists etc. which ignores their leftist political aims and takes into account moral qualities like 'honesty' and 'concern for the people' which would have helped had they joined the government in power. Saying this once is fine - as he points out, Madhu Dandavate being the Railway Minister did help the 'common man' - but to go on in that vein is to play a historical version of the ALL TIME XI that cricket fans like to play. Basically: the world would have been a better place if only more of us had been like Guha.
1. Smooth, anecdotal writing. I have read each of Guha's books of essays on vacation. I haven't intended to read them but have begun and gone on reading.
2. Sociopolitical bellelettrism, basically.
3. Guha calls himself a historian but is actually a story-teller; he has no theses for the movement of history, instead consistently focusing overmuch on individual figures. This obviously works better in a book of essays than in a 'history' like INDIA AFTER GANDHI. His commonsensical arguments centered on the individuals are probably why he is so popular.
4. Rather than tracing systemically why things unfolded as they did, Guha gives elder-brotherly post-facto advice to leftists etc. which ignores their leftist political aims and takes into account moral qualities like 'honesty' and 'concern for the people' which would have helped had they joined the government in power. Saying this once is fine - as he points out, Madhu Dandavate being the Railway Minister did help the 'common man' - but to go on in that vein is to play a historical version of the ALL TIME XI that cricket fans like to play. Basically: the world would have been a better place if only more of us had been like Guha.
June 15, 2013
I here by disavow any notion of liberalism I would have harbored so long.
A page full of bashing of Hindu fanatics counter balanced by single line criticism of other faiths is not the definition of liberals.
Also at more than one point my Maharashtrian ego(which is in abundance) was severely hurt.
The meteoric rise of simpleton Anna Hazare probably itched author as his erudite views of Republic remain confined to academic world and majority follows Anna.
He questions whether women were treated equally during the reign of Shivaji Maharaj. Hello Mr Self-declared Historian, have you heard about jijabai?
Nathuram Godse was religious fanatic. Fanatic - may be. But religious, can you elucidate Mr.Historian.
A page full of bashing of Hindu fanatics counter balanced by single line criticism of other faiths is not the definition of liberals.
Also at more than one point my Maharashtrian ego(which is in abundance) was severely hurt.
The meteoric rise of simpleton Anna Hazare probably itched author as his erudite views of Republic remain confined to academic world and majority follows Anna.
He questions whether women were treated equally during the reign of Shivaji Maharaj. Hello Mr Self-declared Historian, have you heard about jijabai?
Nathuram Godse was religious fanatic. Fanatic - may be. But religious, can you elucidate Mr.Historian.
January 8, 2022
The job of an essayist is not only to gather facts and data and present them but also invoke a response or a sense of responsibility in the reader to direct his thinking and actions towards a definite path based on the factual reasoning from his/her essays. As someone who reads editorial and opinions on different subjects written by experts from diverse domains every day, I have always liked reading essays, especially if compiled as a book. In this book, Ramachandra Guha had curated fifteen essays on various topics ranging from history, democracy, language to politics.
As someone who identifies himself as a Nehruvian, Guha’s scathing criticisms on the later office-bearers of the Congress party post-Indira Gandhi addresses a crucial aspect of the decline of the UPA, the mark of erosion not only in the democratic polity but also the uprising of dynastic sycophancy. Two essays in the book titled ‘A short history of Congress Chamchagiri’ and ‘Professor and the Protestor’ had discussed the preceding allegations in detail. Further, Guha rightly dismisses the never-ending averment that it was Nehru who founded a dynasty by unveiling how the ‘chamchagiri’ was originally the product of Indira Gandhi. He writes, ‘Thus, Nehru-Gandhi dynasty should properly be known as (Indira) Gandhi dynasty.
The essay on the Indo-China conflict is a concise description of the events that lead to the stand-off between two ancient civilizations in 1962, which almost broke Nehru’s zeal for global peace. Presenting us with two possible reasons why Communist China went on an all-out attack on Indian frontiers, Guha also analyses two key elements of Nehru’s naivety in underestimating Communist China. One, ignoring Patel’s warning on how expansionism as the core of Communist philosophy is more ideological than geopolitical, and two, BR Ambedkar and C. Rajagopalachari’s opposition to the non-alignment policy during the 1950s. As Nehru said, ‘we all become a little wiser after the event.’ With the never-ending debacle ongoing for decades now, this essay provides us with enough reasons to pursue the QUAD strategy with utmost vigor and fervor.
In analyzing the shortcomings of the Indian Left, Guha in his essay ‘The past and future of the Indian left’ had summarised: “For all their talk of transforming and shattering the system, however, Marxists, particularly Marxists – Leninists are conservative in their attachments to past ideas and ideologies.” Citing two examples from the history on how Jyoti Basu had prohibited the teaching of English in West Bengal and the much detestable protests by the Left against the computerization of Indian Railways, it has to be understood that reform mindedness is an essential democratic tenet and serves good in the long term, compared to the petty short-sighted revolutions. However, much hasn’t changed still, since anti-industrialism and anti-westernism still run in the blood of the Communists of India, even today.
In the preface of this book, Guha presented us with a case for polemical moderation. “Their characteristics feature of the brand of liberalism were four. First, a belief in reform, not revolution; not in utopian schemes for upturning or rehauling society, but incremental social change based on patient, steady hard work. Second, they urged, and often worked for, the creation of impersonal, rule-bound institutions within the State and in civil society. Third, they kept their distance from political parties and especially from individual politicians. Their allegiance was to the democratic ideals of the Indian Constitution, namely, a multi-party political system based on adult franchise, a secular state, a multilingual polity, equal rights for women and special privilege for the disadvantaged sections.”
If the above characteristics concur with your beliefs and ideas, this book is a must-read to understand pluralism ad redemption of our other democratic values, the need for compromise and conciliation in our political discourse, the influence of our historical ideals in shaping the polity, and most importantly on how arguments should be driven by decencies of reason, not intolerance of ideologies.
As someone who identifies himself as a Nehruvian, Guha’s scathing criticisms on the later office-bearers of the Congress party post-Indira Gandhi addresses a crucial aspect of the decline of the UPA, the mark of erosion not only in the democratic polity but also the uprising of dynastic sycophancy. Two essays in the book titled ‘A short history of Congress Chamchagiri’ and ‘Professor and the Protestor’ had discussed the preceding allegations in detail. Further, Guha rightly dismisses the never-ending averment that it was Nehru who founded a dynasty by unveiling how the ‘chamchagiri’ was originally the product of Indira Gandhi. He writes, ‘Thus, Nehru-Gandhi dynasty should properly be known as (Indira) Gandhi dynasty.
The essay on the Indo-China conflict is a concise description of the events that lead to the stand-off between two ancient civilizations in 1962, which almost broke Nehru’s zeal for global peace. Presenting us with two possible reasons why Communist China went on an all-out attack on Indian frontiers, Guha also analyses two key elements of Nehru’s naivety in underestimating Communist China. One, ignoring Patel’s warning on how expansionism as the core of Communist philosophy is more ideological than geopolitical, and two, BR Ambedkar and C. Rajagopalachari’s opposition to the non-alignment policy during the 1950s. As Nehru said, ‘we all become a little wiser after the event.’ With the never-ending debacle ongoing for decades now, this essay provides us with enough reasons to pursue the QUAD strategy with utmost vigor and fervor.
In analyzing the shortcomings of the Indian Left, Guha in his essay ‘The past and future of the Indian left’ had summarised: “For all their talk of transforming and shattering the system, however, Marxists, particularly Marxists – Leninists are conservative in their attachments to past ideas and ideologies.” Citing two examples from the history on how Jyoti Basu had prohibited the teaching of English in West Bengal and the much detestable protests by the Left against the computerization of Indian Railways, it has to be understood that reform mindedness is an essential democratic tenet and serves good in the long term, compared to the petty short-sighted revolutions. However, much hasn’t changed still, since anti-industrialism and anti-westernism still run in the blood of the Communists of India, even today.
In the preface of this book, Guha presented us with a case for polemical moderation. “Their characteristics feature of the brand of liberalism were four. First, a belief in reform, not revolution; not in utopian schemes for upturning or rehauling society, but incremental social change based on patient, steady hard work. Second, they urged, and often worked for, the creation of impersonal, rule-bound institutions within the State and in civil society. Third, they kept their distance from political parties and especially from individual politicians. Their allegiance was to the democratic ideals of the Indian Constitution, namely, a multi-party political system based on adult franchise, a secular state, a multilingual polity, equal rights for women and special privilege for the disadvantaged sections.”
If the above characteristics concur with your beliefs and ideas, this book is a must-read to understand pluralism ad redemption of our other democratic values, the need for compromise and conciliation in our political discourse, the influence of our historical ideals in shaping the polity, and most importantly on how arguments should be driven by decencies of reason, not intolerance of ideologies.
September 9, 2015
My first whole Guha. And I've been meaning to read him for a long bloody time. When I say whole, I seem to find his essays somewhere or the other (The Caravan, Himal Southasian, other anthologies), and have always been rather overwhelmed by the depth and breadth of his scholarship. And of course, the fact that the man can write. Part of the criticism he receives must be, I think, because of this - it is difficult to trust, for most people, a historian who can write this well.
Though I own a couple more of his books, I chose Patriots and Partisans because I thought a collection of essays might reveal more about the writer's interest areas and pet subjects than a book might. I was right. I attended a lecture by the writer at the Chartered Accountants Association in Madras, and he touched upon all the topics he writes about in the book even then. This is where he's home, the early history of our democracy, its people and its institutions.
Starting the book with a case for being a moderate, as opposed to being a leftist or a right-winger, his essays begin with a history of the ideas with which India was born, and then moves on to a grand array of topics, including a superb comparison of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Anna Hazare. The essay I enjoyed and learnt most from is an analysis of the 1962 Sino-Indian war; there still is a remarkable dearth of knowledge in the popular sphere about this conflict that was so important at that stage for our country's evolution.
The second part of the book is shorter and includes the lovely essay on the Bangalore bookshop Premier's I first read in an anthology of writings on Bangalore. The essays on the Oxford University Press and the EPW also introduced me to several important people in Indian publishing I know only as names.
Altogether, an essential book for the student of Indian history and the ideas that gave shape to it.
Though I own a couple more of his books, I chose Patriots and Partisans because I thought a collection of essays might reveal more about the writer's interest areas and pet subjects than a book might. I was right. I attended a lecture by the writer at the Chartered Accountants Association in Madras, and he touched upon all the topics he writes about in the book even then. This is where he's home, the early history of our democracy, its people and its institutions.
Starting the book with a case for being a moderate, as opposed to being a leftist or a right-winger, his essays begin with a history of the ideas with which India was born, and then moves on to a grand array of topics, including a superb comparison of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Anna Hazare. The essay I enjoyed and learnt most from is an analysis of the 1962 Sino-Indian war; there still is a remarkable dearth of knowledge in the popular sphere about this conflict that was so important at that stage for our country's evolution.
The second part of the book is shorter and includes the lovely essay on the Bangalore bookshop Premier's I first read in an anthology of writings on Bangalore. The essays on the Oxford University Press and the EPW also introduced me to several important people in Indian publishing I know only as names.
Altogether, an essential book for the student of Indian history and the ideas that gave shape to it.
October 23, 2013
My review of this book is probably going to be biased since Guha's views are extremely similar to views I hold. That being said, this is an engaging, excellent and very well-written collection of essays.
The essays are on different topics, ranging from a history of congress sycophancy to the end of Premier Bookshop in Bangalore. Each essay is put together well, with convincing arguments and lucid language. The essay on the decline of the bilingual intellectual, for example, made some excellent points, such as the condescension shown to vernacular languages in English-medium schools and the disastrous decision to remove English from state schools in some parts of the country. The history of the Sino-Indian conflict is presented and analyzed dispassionately.
He also has essays of fairly recent topics such as the 2011 Lokpal agitation, where he does not give much credence to the efficacy of Hazare's stand -- a view also held by me-- and explains why. The history of the EPW is especially brilliant.
Guha is equally critical of the extreme right and the extreme left. Hindu extremism and leftist extremism are, for him, to be resisted equally. Negotiations and democratic compromise are the ideals he advocates.
However, Guha is prone to use superlatives excessively, something that irked me. For him, everything he is talking about is "The best in the country" or "The best that ever will be." Such excessive hyperbole does not really enhance his views.
Guha also seems to deify Gandhi, for whom he often uses superlatives which seem to be open to question. Guha's views on Gandhi colour all his analyses of those times. However, he is more balanced while talking about Nehru, whose mistakes are talked about as dispassionately as his triumphs.
All in all, this is a lovely collection of essays and one definitely worth reading.
The essays are on different topics, ranging from a history of congress sycophancy to the end of Premier Bookshop in Bangalore. Each essay is put together well, with convincing arguments and lucid language. The essay on the decline of the bilingual intellectual, for example, made some excellent points, such as the condescension shown to vernacular languages in English-medium schools and the disastrous decision to remove English from state schools in some parts of the country. The history of the Sino-Indian conflict is presented and analyzed dispassionately.
He also has essays of fairly recent topics such as the 2011 Lokpal agitation, where he does not give much credence to the efficacy of Hazare's stand -- a view also held by me-- and explains why. The history of the EPW is especially brilliant.
Guha is equally critical of the extreme right and the extreme left. Hindu extremism and leftist extremism are, for him, to be resisted equally. Negotiations and democratic compromise are the ideals he advocates.
However, Guha is prone to use superlatives excessively, something that irked me. For him, everything he is talking about is "The best in the country" or "The best that ever will be." Such excessive hyperbole does not really enhance his views.
Guha also seems to deify Gandhi, for whom he often uses superlatives which seem to be open to question. Guha's views on Gandhi colour all his analyses of those times. However, he is more balanced while talking about Nehru, whose mistakes are talked about as dispassionately as his triumphs.
All in all, this is a lovely collection of essays and one definitely worth reading.
August 2, 2014
Some might criticize him for Belle-Lettrism, some for giving way too much importance to individuals rather than the fluid streams of history. And some of that might be true as well. Still, Ramchandra Guha's books are very readable and give a unique sense of pleasure. A strongly worded liberal, always ready to voice opinion against intolerance and fascist tendencies of any kind, he does make history much more accessible to the lay person. Though this book is more a collection of memoirs than a serious historical treatise, still it is irreverent, rich with nostalgia and full of polemics calling out the intolerant culture flag-bearers and arguing passionately for a free-er, more tolerant, more liberal India. Though, frankly through all the pieces one gets a sense of Indian society in general as a mildly decaying one, increasingly becoming intolerant, increasingly loosing the old-world charm of inclusiveness and openness. However, in spite of this, his optimism does shine through. Specially readable for profiles on such institutions like Economic and Political Weekly and Nehru Memorial Library.
August 29, 2015
Especially like the essay on Congress Chamchagiri... For all its purpose and usefulness the author could not keep his personal bias out of the essays. But then he is in his own words a "extremist-moderate"...
August 9, 2017
it was quite impossible to read this quick, because of the amount of information and references the author has given in the book. each of them very relevant and draws from various sources.
Good read, and must for everyone who want a historical view of Indian politics.
Good read, and must for everyone who want a historical view of Indian politics.
August 12, 2013
A sad book. Guha is not liberal and he proves it in this book. He is too opinionated and biased to provide perspective on history.
Part 2 of the book will not appeal at all to many many people.
Part 2 of the book will not appeal at all to many many people.
February 22, 2016
Wonderful collection of essays - ranging from analyses of the Sino-Indian War of 1962 to reflections on influential bookstores and Individuals on the Indian intellectual community.
July 13, 2017
Did not complete. Just lost the interest
February 13, 2021
The essays that make up this collection are thoughtful, even if a little uneven on occasion. As someone striving to learn more about India's political and social history, this was illuminating. The essay on Premier's was especially endearing, as were the diverse perspectives on the Nehruvian and post-Nehruvian eras. One unfortunate thing is that this book came out in 2012/13, preceding the current government. I would have loved to see Guha's thoughts on today's Indian political scene fleshed out, even if as an epilogue in a newer edition.
Read
July 2, 2014I had interest in Guha as a person as I was listening to him on various TV channels on a debate. May it be discussing about Greatest Indian after Gandhi or sharing his views on Cricket. His proficient language and excellent vocabulary flattered me. There are few people whose mere presence and style grabs your attention and hints you that they are full of knowledge(correct).
Grabbed this book from roadside,(for me reading is imp than locationJ).
This book is a collection of his essays published in various journals covering topics from Nehru,Indo-China war to gandhis ideologies,religious faith to a book store owner in Bangalore ..For me it was altogether new expeience as I had never explored this genre ,style of writing before.
His essay redeeming the republic covers
Chapter 1:India as a republic country and its challenges. He points at 3 enemies of Idea of India 1.
Hindutva wave 2. Naxals and adivasis 3.Collation of various states-Seperatalism. Adding to it are 3 more
inequality(wealth,consumption,education etc), corruption and environmental degradation.
Chapter 2 : Congress chamchagiri
It all started after Nehrus death. Shastri became PM and Indira Gandhi was given a ministry of
Information and bradcasting even though she didn’t had any interest. T was a gratitude towards her
father.With sudden demise of Shastri, cabinet ministers thought that making Indira PM would help
them to keep all the string with them.This move backfired and Indira kicked their asses and took the
complete control. During emergency ,Indira needed support and Sanjay Gandhi came into picture. So
it was an hierarchy and dynasty coming into picture.post Sanjay and Indiras death, congress leveraged
the incidents and made Rajiv PM.Lobbying to first family,distribution of posts and portfolios were
based on loyalty than merit.This actually percolated in the states of inia,like karunanidhi and his son
in TN,Shiv sena in maharshtra.i personally think this is true in every field.family background matters
than merit,else Abhishek bachcan would never had tried to become an actor,marrying aishwarya .Many
industrialists successors would be different..shounak abhisheki would be still a struggling singer..
Chapter 3 : Hindutva hate mail- collection of mails from different parts of the country on Guhas liberal
thoughts.
Chapter 4:Past and future of Indian Left :
He speaks about kerala and Bengal,2 states where lefts had power.Kerala went on to become state
with highest literacy wheresas Bengal stayed back.Communist leaders are well read and educated
which helps the government but their top to bottom approach affected the public.they should be in the
government to give them reality check.Indian Marxists are technophobic.They should overcome their
close mindedness.
Chapter 5: Protestor and professor- Anna hazare and Manmohan singh
Hazare lacked world view. Couple of wins like RTI in Maharashtra cant make him Gandhi..he wasn’t even
Gandhian.he as a person is clear and has integrity.
About Singh, he mentions about 4 points which doesn’t make him great PM-
1.his timidity in front of Sonia
2.Not contesting Lok sabha election
3.lack of judgement while chosing key advisers..(loyalist over merit coz of her highness).He wasn’t
narshimha rao who chose great ppl like him.
Chapter 6: Gandhis faith and ours :
He didn’t recommended idol worship or rituals.equal citizenship.His religious experiences were based onhis experiences.a person should stick to his religion by birth and seek to improve its truth content.
Chapter 7: Nehrus reputation:
We all blaim Nehru for China war defeat.Yes it was a mistake..he had been warned by Patel and other
ministers about chinas intentions about border disputes but Nehrus faith backfired.all his contribution to Pre independence and post independence was washed out with China war.It was very difficult for a
nation like India to come under one roof and work towards democracy.And to lead this mission ,people like Nehru took up the challenge and worked in a balanced way. He built dams,IITs,IIms but neglected primar education.He had a charisma , an aura around him and he lived to it.Nehrus secularism was doubted which led to rise of Janata party. He is remembered as father of Indira. His next generations had spoiled his image to some extent.
Chapter 8 : India china war:
Both coutries were free. One with socialist attitude and other with communist.India being non aligned in cold war,n china on side of Russia might have triggered the dispute.China wanted to take over Tibet
but India had some territory in between which was divided as Macmhon line by britishers.China didn’t agreed to it.If india would have fallen from non aligned, communalism would have grown and china would have been benefited.
Other chapters include the lack of compromise which led to LTTE,naxal struggles in India.
Next part covers more internal matters like pluralism of indian universities,bilingual intellectuals and their beneifts,.Guhas personal experiences in building Nehru memorial museum and politics in it,book vendor in Bangalore,oxford university press, economic and political weekly completes the book giving an enriching experience for me.
A must read for different tastes and happenings in India which we would have never come across.
Grabbed this book from roadside,(for me reading is imp than locationJ).
This book is a collection of his essays published in various journals covering topics from Nehru,Indo-China war to gandhis ideologies,religious faith to a book store owner in Bangalore ..For me it was altogether new expeience as I had never explored this genre ,style of writing before.
His essay redeeming the republic covers
Chapter 1:India as a republic country and its challenges. He points at 3 enemies of Idea of India 1.
Hindutva wave 2. Naxals and adivasis 3.Collation of various states-Seperatalism. Adding to it are 3 more
inequality(wealth,consumption,education etc), corruption and environmental degradation.
Chapter 2 : Congress chamchagiri
It all started after Nehrus death. Shastri became PM and Indira Gandhi was given a ministry of
Information and bradcasting even though she didn’t had any interest. T was a gratitude towards her
father.With sudden demise of Shastri, cabinet ministers thought that making Indira PM would help
them to keep all the string with them.This move backfired and Indira kicked their asses and took the
complete control. During emergency ,Indira needed support and Sanjay Gandhi came into picture. So
it was an hierarchy and dynasty coming into picture.post Sanjay and Indiras death, congress leveraged
the incidents and made Rajiv PM.Lobbying to first family,distribution of posts and portfolios were
based on loyalty than merit.This actually percolated in the states of inia,like karunanidhi and his son
in TN,Shiv sena in maharshtra.i personally think this is true in every field.family background matters
than merit,else Abhishek bachcan would never had tried to become an actor,marrying aishwarya .Many
industrialists successors would be different..shounak abhisheki would be still a struggling singer..
Chapter 3 : Hindutva hate mail- collection of mails from different parts of the country on Guhas liberal
thoughts.
Chapter 4:Past and future of Indian Left :
He speaks about kerala and Bengal,2 states where lefts had power.Kerala went on to become state
with highest literacy wheresas Bengal stayed back.Communist leaders are well read and educated
which helps the government but their top to bottom approach affected the public.they should be in the
government to give them reality check.Indian Marxists are technophobic.They should overcome their
close mindedness.
Chapter 5: Protestor and professor- Anna hazare and Manmohan singh
Hazare lacked world view. Couple of wins like RTI in Maharashtra cant make him Gandhi..he wasn’t even
Gandhian.he as a person is clear and has integrity.
About Singh, he mentions about 4 points which doesn’t make him great PM-
1.his timidity in front of Sonia
2.Not contesting Lok sabha election
3.lack of judgement while chosing key advisers..(loyalist over merit coz of her highness).He wasn’t
narshimha rao who chose great ppl like him.
Chapter 6: Gandhis faith and ours :
He didn’t recommended idol worship or rituals.equal citizenship.His religious experiences were based onhis experiences.a person should stick to his religion by birth and seek to improve its truth content.
Chapter 7: Nehrus reputation:
We all blaim Nehru for China war defeat.Yes it was a mistake..he had been warned by Patel and other
ministers about chinas intentions about border disputes but Nehrus faith backfired.all his contribution to Pre independence and post independence was washed out with China war.It was very difficult for a
nation like India to come under one roof and work towards democracy.And to lead this mission ,people like Nehru took up the challenge and worked in a balanced way. He built dams,IITs,IIms but neglected primar education.He had a charisma , an aura around him and he lived to it.Nehrus secularism was doubted which led to rise of Janata party. He is remembered as father of Indira. His next generations had spoiled his image to some extent.
Chapter 8 : India china war:
Both coutries were free. One with socialist attitude and other with communist.India being non aligned in cold war,n china on side of Russia might have triggered the dispute.China wanted to take over Tibet
but India had some territory in between which was divided as Macmhon line by britishers.China didn’t agreed to it.If india would have fallen from non aligned, communalism would have grown and china would have been benefited.
Other chapters include the lack of compromise which led to LTTE,naxal struggles in India.
Next part covers more internal matters like pluralism of indian universities,bilingual intellectuals and their beneifts,.Guhas personal experiences in building Nehru memorial museum and politics in it,book vendor in Bangalore,oxford university press, economic and political weekly completes the book giving an enriching experience for me.
A must read for different tastes and happenings in India which we would have never come across.
May 18, 2020
This book was my first dive into non-fiction. And it was the best way to enter the bookshelf of adulthood!
September 15, 2021
Guha writes in 2012, so when he (imo) falsely equates the Left and Right I can't help but find it anachronistic. That an entire essay is spent on Anna Hazare doesn't help.
Apart from that Guha is a moderate through-and-through, and conveniently takes the Enlightened Centrist route. In fact, he engages with this criticism and brings out the best part of the book. Even then, (1) Being a 2012 book he dismisses the RW, and (2) he unfairly conflates the Left with Naxalites.
Many might find the last few sections unrelated and out-of-place (Guha extensively talks about a few institutions that shaped his life). They are, but I found the autobiographical parts amusing.
Apart from that Guha is a moderate through-and-through, and conveniently takes the Enlightened Centrist route. In fact, he engages with this criticism and brings out the best part of the book. Even then, (1) Being a 2012 book he dismisses the RW, and (2) he unfairly conflates the Left with Naxalites.
Many might find the last few sections unrelated and out-of-place (Guha extensively talks about a few institutions that shaped his life). They are, but I found the autobiographical parts amusing.
September 6, 2014
It was a nice read. I am not from social sciences background & have very little academic knowledge of Indian politics & social issues. However, as a common man, I am interested in contemporary history of India. This book is a collection of chapters based on diverse topics ranging from Indo-China relation, a nice critique of Jawaharlal Nehru as a nation builder, politician & surprisingly as a thought-leader to decline of Indian academic institutions & importance of compromise for social & political stability. First thing to notice about this book is its fluidity & the presence of a central theme across different chapters based on very different issues. The writer is largely fair in his treatment of all types of political opinion (be it Hindu-right, Congress-centrists or left). However I find time-to-time, he is a bit harsh in his criticism of BJP/ RSS & a little bit soft on India's first prime minister.
I recommend this book to all those non-scholarly types all of whom have interest in contemporary history of India.
I recommend this book to all those non-scholarly types all of whom have interest in contemporary history of India.
December 1, 2012
This probably, this is the one non-fiction which I finished very quickly. Quick and good read. Partly may be there are few interesting essay of my choice - Mr. Shanbhag of Premier Book Shop Bangalore, Nehru Memorial Museum & Library (NMML), Oxford University Press (OUP), and Economic and Political Weekly (EPW).
May 4, 2019
Finally i got hold of one of Mr. Guha's books. I was planning to start reading this author through his most famous book, India after Gandhi but i got hold of this in the training in bhopal and it was amazing
I've always grappled with the meaning of left, centre, right, liberal, communists, Gandhian etc but definitions highlighted in these books has brought me one step closer to understanding them. There's a possibility that in certain social gatherings if you associate yourself with any of the aforementioned groups, either through self declaration or external branding, a certain backdrop appears out of nowhere and from there on, every action of yours is judged in association with that backdrop. It may catch you off guard at times as you would be unable to realize or understand as to why suddenly people have gotten more hostile/docile, depending upon the collective temperament and acceptable beliefs of the crowd
Let's start with who is a liberal intellectual:
1) They believe in incremental social changes and reforms and are not up for a revolution. They would be happy to see maybe a 5-10% improvement periodically and they would be happy with it. It is often said that those who announce that they are there to change the world are either not willing to do anything from the start or they end up hardly making any difference anyway
2) They want to create rule based institutions because if a law and order is based upon an individual personality or a collective personality of a group, it runs the risk of centralization and once that group or individual is out of power, there's no way to guarantee that the same precedent would be used for creating something good only(assuming it was used for creating something good)
3)They stay away from political parties and make sure that even when they criticize or approbate, it is abundantly clear that they are talking about the policies and actions and not about the ideological cornerstone or teachings of that organization per se
4) They practice a subconscious and understated patriotism through which they try to fulfill their aim of making India better/ less worse than what was it at the time of their entry
Seems like a good enough explanation of the term to me. What do you guys say?
Apart from this, the author has made no secret about the fact that he is a Nehru fan. He has enumerated and explained various instances to substantiate his claim and honestly speaking, he has swayed me. After reading this, i can safely say that Nehru is one of the most misunderstood, erroneously portrayed and incomprehensible PM that India has ever had the good fortune of having. Why? Let's see what's the prevailing image of the first PM of India in the young generation's mind:
1) We feel that he was just primarily flirting with Edwina Mountbatten which led to the partition and careless governance. This isn't true. I won't deny that he was close with Mrs. Mountbatten but using this to draw conclusions about his patriotism is mighty small on our part. Compare any other PM and Nehru has fared better because he had to endure partition, creating a union of India by adding around 500 princely states, starting the nation's journey with abject poverty and illiteracy and even the private enterprises were fearful of any investments to kick start the economic engine of the country
2) Communists say that he is a British agent because he is an English educated, upper class elite who ruled India and actually carry forwarded the discrimination started by the Britishers. This image of his is actually because of his daughter. People generally confuse between the two as both belonged to the same family. She was the one who diluted the institutions and started the era of dynastic politics. If Nehru would have been responsible for this, then Lal Bahadur Shastri would never have followed him as a successor selected through a democratic process
3) Gandhians say that Mahatama Gandhi envisioned India as a confederation of self-sustaining village republics while Nehru made a heavy industry based and urban centralized model of India which was destined to grow at the cost of countryside. Some weight-age can be given to this claim as this model has continued has led to severe ecological imbalances across the country. But still, we need to cut him some slack because he wanted to create egalitarian society both economically and politically, i.e why he adopted socialism over capitalism as capitalism only led to colonization of Britishers. In the benefit of hindsight, its easier to point out these decisions as mistakes
4) Finally, the most famous mistaking China as a friend. This wasn't intentional. Assuming that he had better idea of history than me or most of us, he had all the proofs which helped him to conclude that China would play a big-brother's part in the rejuvenation of Asia. China and India had shared ancient ties long before Europeans came to India and since both were British colonies, it was natural to assume that both would cooperate effectively post-independence
It is a very interesting read. It has also highlighted about what's wrong with the education system in India but I feel that it would be better if you read it you own words
"Nowadays, patriotism has become the last resort of a scoundrel"
I've always grappled with the meaning of left, centre, right, liberal, communists, Gandhian etc but definitions highlighted in these books has brought me one step closer to understanding them. There's a possibility that in certain social gatherings if you associate yourself with any of the aforementioned groups, either through self declaration or external branding, a certain backdrop appears out of nowhere and from there on, every action of yours is judged in association with that backdrop. It may catch you off guard at times as you would be unable to realize or understand as to why suddenly people have gotten more hostile/docile, depending upon the collective temperament and acceptable beliefs of the crowd
Let's start with who is a liberal intellectual:
1) They believe in incremental social changes and reforms and are not up for a revolution. They would be happy to see maybe a 5-10% improvement periodically and they would be happy with it. It is often said that those who announce that they are there to change the world are either not willing to do anything from the start or they end up hardly making any difference anyway
2) They want to create rule based institutions because if a law and order is based upon an individual personality or a collective personality of a group, it runs the risk of centralization and once that group or individual is out of power, there's no way to guarantee that the same precedent would be used for creating something good only(assuming it was used for creating something good)
3)They stay away from political parties and make sure that even when they criticize or approbate, it is abundantly clear that they are talking about the policies and actions and not about the ideological cornerstone or teachings of that organization per se
4) They practice a subconscious and understated patriotism through which they try to fulfill their aim of making India better/ less worse than what was it at the time of their entry
Seems like a good enough explanation of the term to me. What do you guys say?
Apart from this, the author has made no secret about the fact that he is a Nehru fan. He has enumerated and explained various instances to substantiate his claim and honestly speaking, he has swayed me. After reading this, i can safely say that Nehru is one of the most misunderstood, erroneously portrayed and incomprehensible PM that India has ever had the good fortune of having. Why? Let's see what's the prevailing image of the first PM of India in the young generation's mind:
1) We feel that he was just primarily flirting with Edwina Mountbatten which led to the partition and careless governance. This isn't true. I won't deny that he was close with Mrs. Mountbatten but using this to draw conclusions about his patriotism is mighty small on our part. Compare any other PM and Nehru has fared better because he had to endure partition, creating a union of India by adding around 500 princely states, starting the nation's journey with abject poverty and illiteracy and even the private enterprises were fearful of any investments to kick start the economic engine of the country
2) Communists say that he is a British agent because he is an English educated, upper class elite who ruled India and actually carry forwarded the discrimination started by the Britishers. This image of his is actually because of his daughter. People generally confuse between the two as both belonged to the same family. She was the one who diluted the institutions and started the era of dynastic politics. If Nehru would have been responsible for this, then Lal Bahadur Shastri would never have followed him as a successor selected through a democratic process
3) Gandhians say that Mahatama Gandhi envisioned India as a confederation of self-sustaining village republics while Nehru made a heavy industry based and urban centralized model of India which was destined to grow at the cost of countryside. Some weight-age can be given to this claim as this model has continued has led to severe ecological imbalances across the country. But still, we need to cut him some slack because he wanted to create egalitarian society both economically and politically, i.e why he adopted socialism over capitalism as capitalism only led to colonization of Britishers. In the benefit of hindsight, its easier to point out these decisions as mistakes
4) Finally, the most famous mistaking China as a friend. This wasn't intentional. Assuming that he had better idea of history than me or most of us, he had all the proofs which helped him to conclude that China would play a big-brother's part in the rejuvenation of Asia. China and India had shared ancient ties long before Europeans came to India and since both were British colonies, it was natural to assume that both would cooperate effectively post-independence
It is a very interesting read. It has also highlighted about what's wrong with the education system in India but I feel that it would be better if you read it you own words
"Nowadays, patriotism has become the last resort of a scoundrel"
August 26, 2013
Awesome. Guha writes everything. A liberal and yet he speaks fair of all. In the other sense, he has no problem finding out mistakes with anyone. Those alive, those dead, those he know and those he doesn't. Yes patriots and partisans is on masterpiece
August 20, 2014
This is one book which should be read by minds interested in modern Indian history. There are some chapters which are avoidable though ( I will update the list).
November 16, 2014
I prefer to read the first part of the collection and Debating democracy,essays on Nehru,Gandhi's religion and Indo-china war are remarkable one. My personal favorite is fall of the Indian left
September 22, 2015
Collection of essays. Some are very esoteric and hence slightly boring..
July 16, 2017
This collection of essays written by Mr. Guha debunks many myth surrounding Pandit Nehru and through its logical consistency implores me to judge Pandit Nehru on better terms.
It is a book which will make an Indian think about various policies enacted by state and central government in fields of education. Since I studied science in my college days I always thought social science is of no use to me but the way Mr. Guha writes and describes the fact that social science is the basic ingredient to have well formed mind is commendable.
Whatever issues Mr. Guha was facing a decade ago has intensified in present days, secularism is being strangled by fanatics, you hear reports of mob lynching, high level official posts which were based on meritocracy is now based on sycophancy etc.
One of the best feature of this book is that it introduces you to host of other Indian author who think in similar line.
All in all it was a book which provided me set of answers to a problem which every Indian can relate to
It is a book which will make an Indian think about various policies enacted by state and central government in fields of education. Since I studied science in my college days I always thought social science is of no use to me but the way Mr. Guha writes and describes the fact that social science is the basic ingredient to have well formed mind is commendable.
Whatever issues Mr. Guha was facing a decade ago has intensified in present days, secularism is being strangled by fanatics, you hear reports of mob lynching, high level official posts which were based on meritocracy is now based on sycophancy etc.
One of the best feature of this book is that it introduces you to host of other Indian author who think in similar line.
All in all it was a book which provided me set of answers to a problem which every Indian can relate to
September 4, 2017
This book is again a collection of essays related to various aspects of Nationalism and our foreign affairs. I particularly like a couple of essays that spoke about the Hindutva hate mails that he received and also about the hows and the whys of China policy.
While the hate mail essay was extremely relatable in this era of social media and paid trolling, his thoughts about the Indo-China relations were interesting. He seems to be a Nehru sympathiser to me. I am being specific because he seemed to spare no softness for Indira Gandhi and abhor the next line of Gandhis. Well, these are just my observations.
The book is a slow read. One might want to actually spare time after every essay to ponder about the ideas presented in those essays.
While the hate mail essay was extremely relatable in this era of social media and paid trolling, his thoughts about the Indo-China relations were interesting. He seems to be a Nehru sympathiser to me. I am being specific because he seemed to spare no softness for Indira Gandhi and abhor the next line of Gandhis. Well, these are just my observations.
The book is a slow read. One might want to actually spare time after every essay to ponder about the ideas presented in those essays.
January 11, 2020
I thoroughly enjoyed the insight that these essays provided me with. It layed the template for me to make sense of contemporary India. As a social scientist, the writer's critique and analysis possesses an objective quality that I enjoy when it comes to sociopolitical issues. The writing feels thorough and engaging without being too repetitive. The writer portrays a finesse in comprehending matters holistically rather than in isolation. He admits his own affiliations and flaws when relevant. He has the ability to bring history and it's important figures to life! I will definitely be reading more of Guha.
December 31, 2016
Apart from last 4 essays which seem to have been written out of personal nostalgia about the events, places and institutions concerned, the book depicts a clear dichotomy of schools of thought on various contemporary issues. Dr. Guha surgically analyses plethora of view points with a dispassionate approach. More, in the book (for I don't wish to write a thesis on the book!) :)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 95 reviews