Unpacking theory, history in a dialogic relationship

At a time when reports of all kinds of deliberate attempts to destroy Jawaharlal Nehru University, one of the leading universities especially of the liberal arts in India, are rife, one of its finest historians, Professor Neeladri Bhattacharya has again reminded us why it is rated so highly in academia. His path-breaking monograph on significant transformations in Punjab under British rule ( 1849- 1947) adds to his legendary reputation of a teacher par excellence in Centre for Historical Studies for over four decades. Much admired for his enthralling lectures on problems of historical writing and method, Professor Bhattacharya would never cease to mesmerise through his grounding in both grand theories, as well as empirical details, the touchstone of the historian’s craft. In the book, as in his lectures, Professor Bhattacharya has grappled with dominant ideologies, fashionable theories, colonial archives and the crucial agrarian questions in Punjab and elsewhere. Assumptions and ideologies can be set aside if they do not further our understanding— thus underlining the tensions between theory and history. Even theories and categories are interrogated and modified. These are methodological concerns not only for understanding colonial India, with undivided Punjab as a test case, but also for pre-colonial or Mughal history, as well as later political conflicts and crises. The central concern in his book is to trace the colonial conquest and transformations through administrative measures, archival records and responses on the grounds. The aggressive and deep British penetration meant old-style paternal benevolent governance was discarded to establish an authoritarian regime, with tenancies, tenures, properties and habitations brought under control through new administrative apparatus and law- courts. This involved systematically mapping, classifying, categorising, demarcating fields, planning irrigation, introducing crops and trees, clearing scrubs and restricting access to the commons. The social engineering by the colonial state, which produced the colonial agrarian order, could be seen in meticulous maintenance of records, manuals, settlement papers, village maps, boundaries, etc. All these were brought under the jurisdiction of the evolving laws, covering property acts, codes of customs, rules of inheritance, and tenancy rights. These changes had broad ramifications, which affected many aspects of life in the rural world, agrari an and non- agrarian. Murmurs of protest were eventually bound to irrupt into an open movement for independence and freedom. The notions of pre-colonial abundance, prosperity, peace, and freedom were pitched against widespread poverty, debt, litigation, high prices and taxation under colonial rule. The future azadi was contrasted with the present slavery, which had left the country in tatters. The ruptures were so deep that even well- meaning British observers dismissed genuine grievances as blatant lies. The early belief in British benevolent paternalism had come to a cropper, with aggressive authoritarianism leading to terrible consequences, although officials lived in denial. The Pax Britannica was presented as synonymous with a prosperous, progressive, and modern society, which was contrasted with the nomadic, primitive, and fatalistic worldview of the colonised, needing enlightenment. By the end of the British rule, the lament was: “We have nothing to eat, we are dying of hunger, there is no sugar, no cloth, no matches. Look at our children, how ravaged they are. Our lot is unbearable.” The much-celebrated canal colony completely shattered the traditional ecological balance, with pastoralists barred from the jungles, thus destroying their livelihoods and even food habits. On the other hand, continuous waterlogging and frequent floods in the villages along the great canal network made life unbearable; villages had to be abandoned, as the land was destroyed by salinity and malaria wreaked havoc. Complete subversion of the existing systems and subjugation of people was the foundational aim of colonial conquest. Colonialism and imperialism had no redeeming features. In British perception of its rule, the beginning was marked by promises of a better future, and it ended with disavowal and rejection. Peace, justice and enough to eat would be possible with azadi from colonial slavery is what the people hoped. And, as is the case with all desperate regimes in India, the British played the Hindu-Muslim card until the last months of their departure. Professor Bhattacharya’s voluminous work, spread over 500 pages, and divided into ten chapters in four sections, besides a concise historiographical introduction and a conclusion referring to colonial nostalgia in the months leading to Independence, offers stimulating and valuable insights on a whole range of themes and issues in the history of colonial India. In the distinguished historian’s words: the attempt is to unpack the nitty-gritty of theory and history in a “dialogic” relationship—which he does with admirable finesse. (Based on Professor Neeladri Bhattacharya’s book, The Great Agrarian Conquest: The Colonial Reshaping of a Rural World, published by Permanent Black, 2018). Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan appears to have ruffled many feathers in the Indian state of Punjab, when he singled out senior Congress leader and his cricketing days’ buddy, Navjot Singh Sidhu, and heaped lavish praise on him during the ground breaking ceremony for the visa free corridor, from Gurdwara Darbar Saheb in Kartarpur to the Dera Baba Nanak shrine. Sidhu, like Imran, is a maverick politician and manages to stay in the limelight on some pretext or the other.

The love fest between the one-time, on field archrivals, is bound to have long term political ramifications in Punjab, with Sidhu, in the eyes of a large segment of population, emerging as the sole leader who has been able to secure this concession for the Sikhs from his friend, Imran on the momentous occasion of Guru Nanak Dev’s 550th birth anniversary celebrations.

It is another matter that earlier in the year, the Punjab Chief Minister, Captain Amarinder Singh had got a unanimous resolution passed in the Assembly in support of this demand, which was first made a decade ago by Paramjit Singh Sarna, a prominent Delhi Sikh leader. Several other well-known Sikhs and Akalis too have been urging successive governments to provide access to the pilgrims.

The preferential treatment to Sidhu, on the Pakistani soil, was at the cost of two Union Ministers, Harsimrat Kaur Badal, daughter-in-law of former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and Hardeep Singh Puri, who were both present on the occasion. In fact, the discord between Sidhu while he was still with the BJP and the Akalis had its roots in the strong reservations that the Badals had over his projection, particularly because like most of the top Akali leaders, Sidhu too is a Jat Sikh. His popularity was viewed as a challenge to Sukhbir Singh Badal, the heir apparent to his father.

Therefore, the Badals have been his most vocal critics and never spare any opportunity to assail him whenever an opportunity arises. Kartarpur Saheb visa corridor is both a political and religious issue and the Akalis realise that Sidhu has stolen a march over them. On its part, the BJP too attempted its hand at wooing the Sikhs when Prime Minister Narendra Modi, referred to the collapse of the Berlin wall, while announcing his government’s decision granting permission for the visa free corridor.

Prompted by the supporters of the ruling party, several TV channels tried to decode Imran’s praise for Sidhu and his general comments as a conspiracy by Pakistan to dislodge Modi as Prime Minister. Nothing could have been more outlandish given that democracy in India is not brittle and Modi is the Prime Minister because he enjoys both the backing of the Indian Parliament and the people. Imran’s intentions of pushing the peace agenda, appears on the face value, to be genuine and sincere, but till attacks by Pakistani trained terrorists continue on the Indian territory, no forward movement may take place.

If symbolism is taken seriously, then the ground breaking ceremony at Kartarpur Saheb may have its share of problems, particularly so far as the latent Pakistani agenda goes. The foundation stone was shaped like a kirpan, the revered religious and sacred symbol of the Sikhs, but what became disturbing was that the Pakistani army’s court of arms was embossed on top. The intention, if interpreted through a political lens, is that Pakistan wants to win over the Sikhs through this seemingly generous gesture, which appeals to the Sikh sentiments and emotions. The issue is not as simple as it looks.

Sidhu may have won accolades, but he has to, henceforth, tread his political path with great caution. His restlessness cannot lead to his immediate elevation and therefore he must choose his words with care while speaking from any platform, whether in India or abroad. Captain Amarinder Singh has given him a long rope and has chosen to disregard his transgressions which included a well thought through advice of not going to Kartarpur Saheb as long as soldiers on the Indian side get killed by the actions of the Pakistani army. One can only speculate that the Chief Minister must have been under tremendous pressure to drop the former cricketer from his Cabinet, but being a seasoned politician, he has allowed the matter to pass.

However, Sidhu continues to be defiant, and fails to acknowledge that the grand victory of the Congress in the Punjab Assembly polls was on account of Amarinder Singh’s leadership, and his reach-out to all sections, particularly the Sikh peasantry. He is in total command and therefore to nurse ambitions of dislodging him, would have grave consequences for Sidhu as well as the Congress.

In an uncalled declaration, Sidhu hailed Rahul Gandhi as his captain, a clear attempt to undermine Amarinder Singh, “whom he saw as a father figure” and by implication not his leader. While virtually demonstrating his proximity to Rahul (and the family), he sent a message to the state leadership that he enjoyed the political patronage of the Congress high command and thus was on a firm ground. Having won the hearts and minds of the Sikhs, Sidhu is clearly positioning himself as the number two in the Punjab government, thereby laying down a succession plan, post Amarinder.

Sidhu needs to understand that politics demands a Sunil Gavaskar kind of innings, long and steady. Not the swashbuckling kind he played during his heydays. Between us.