INTERVIEW: RAMACHANDRA GUHA

RAMACHANDRA GUHA talks to kai friese on how history is repeating itself and the 10th anniversary edition of his India after Gandhi

Q1. This is a very fat book! Can we expect an update every 10 years?

A. I don’t know! I had the energy to do this, and obviously, some quite dramatic developments have taken place over the last ten years, so I put those in. I’ll figure out in eight years if I want to do it again.

Q2. The book begins with the moment of Independence, Partition riots and ‘parricide’. Given what happened recently in Basirhat, West Bengal, do you wonder whether we remain trapped in the consequences of that moment? A. Yes, to some extent. But I think from the 19th century onwards the question ‘can Hindus and Muslims live peaceably in a single nation?’ had faced the national movement. It’s been an uneasy coexistence, but religious pluralism is hardwired in India, and a lot depends on the courage and sagacity of the political class. If you look at the last few months, the immediate parallel is with Ram Janmabhoomi, not Partition, which was on a much larger scale.

Q3. Apart from the 70th anniversary of Independence, this year will also mark Indira Gandhi’s 100th and the 40th anniversary of the end of the Emergency. Does the Emergency deserve more attention as an episode that shaped India's polity? Facilitating the rise of the BJP? The Jan Sangh got its first taste of national popularity thanks to it…

A. They might have got it anyway. Even the Congress in the 1920s and ’30s had a strong conservative Hindu current—Nehru and Gandhi vanquished it, but it was there, so one could argue that it would come back again.

But there are some striking parallels between Indira Gandhi’s and Modi’s style of governance: hegemonic control of the party, with only one person to trust—Amit Shah, and in her case, Sanjay Gandhi—no one else. Attempts to manipulate the judiciary and control the media .... The use of governors to intrigue against opposition state governments. I don’t think there’ll be another Emergency, it can’t happen. But in the design to control, subordinate and manipulate public institutions, Modi is like Indira Gandhi, without a doubt.

Q4. How do you think the Indian press today compares with what we saw during the Emergency? Has there been a sharp decline in independence?

A. One of the things that happened as a consequence of the Emergency is the rise of Indian language journalism in 197881. What is heartening today is the rise of quality websites, and there are a few. Even if sections of the press are too timid or compromised, there is some very good reporting even in the mainstream press. TV, of course, is totally compromised.

Q5. Ten years since the first edition of this book, are you more optimistic or less? A. India is such a large and complex country that if there’s progress in one sphere, there’s regression in another. The bureaucracy is compromised, arbitrary use of state power is on the increase, the criminal justice system has declined in the past four years, everyday corruption is probably as bad or worse, Hindu-Muslim violence seems to be increasing…. On the other side, there is more autonomy, more freedom. In two respects, Indians are freer than ever before—caste is now delinked from occupation/ profession and young Indians are freer to fall in love with whom they want.

In 2007, I called us a 50-50 democracy; I’d still say that. At the same time, I’m also worried about the rise of majoritarianism—I totally subscribe to the Gandhi-Nehru idea of India not being a Hindu Pakistan.