Ramachandra Guha did Econ for his first 2 degrees. Thus he doesn't know any Indian history. This means he can't understand the context of any text he stumbles upon even from the period he specializes in. More worryingly, there are things which he subconsciously must know but which he must pretend not to. This is the tension which is revealed in his hysterical, Huccha Venkat type, manic protestation
Consider the following article, published in Scroll.in, which concerns a speech given by the late K.Swaminathan and the context of which is known to all people of my, or Guha's, age and background. It reveals an extraordinary ignorance not just of history but also of how politics works in a democratic country.
In 1937 – a decade before the formal declaration of Independence – Indians got a measure of self-rule when governments elected on a limited franchise were formed in the different provinces of the raj.
However, under dyarchy, India had had general elections to Central and Provincial Legislative Assemblies since 1923. India could have got universal franchise at the same time as Ceylon- i.e. 1931
This was seen as a step on the road to full representative government.
This was Provincial Autonomy. Unfortunately Indians could not agree to form a Federal Government at the center. This was because th 1935 Act stipulated that half the states had to agree. Thus dyarchy remained at the Center.
Shortly after a Congress government was sworn into office in the Madras Presidency, a Tamil intellectual made a remarkable speech about leadership, whose ideas strikingly resonate with the political culture of India today.
Tamil Nadu is now ruled by a Chief Minister named Stalin. He represents a party whose official spokesperson recently endorsed Periyar's call for genocide against Tamil Brahmins.
The intellectual in question, K Swaminathan,
like Guha and me was a Tamil Brahmin who supported Mahatma Gandhi whom Periyar loathed. But it is Periyar who has prevailed in Tamil politics.
was at the time a professor of literature at Presidency College.
Madras, now called Chennai.
Speaking in 1938 at the Annamalai University, he told the assembled students that there were, in essence, two different kinds of political leaders – those who saw themselves as indispensable and those who did not. K Swaminathan, was at the time a professor of literature at Presidency College. Speaking in 1938 at the Annamalai University, he told the assembled students that there were, in essence, two different kinds of political leaders – those who saw themselves as indispensable and those who did not.
Why did Swaminathan make this point? The answer is that it is usual for Professors to tell students that they must think for themselves. For a while you can rely on your teachers to train you. But the aim is to become autonomous and capable of making sensible decisions on your own. You must surpass your teachers.
A good political leader should help his people to dispense with his leadership and make decisions on their own. A bad political leader seeks to make himself indispensable- an 'obligatory passage point'- with the right to veto any decision made by anybody else.
Swaminathan, as a supporter of Gandhi and Congress, was saying that Periyar- who had become the President of the Justice Party, which had opposed Gandhi in 1932- claimed a Messianic status. He himself was indispensable to the non-Brahmin 97 per cent majority. Without him, they would be killed or humiliated by the Brahmins.
He singled out one name in the latter category, writing: “Mr Gandhi has been deeply concerned and studiously careful these last three or four years to train his successors.
Swaminathan was saying that the Justice Party was factionalized. Big leaders didn't want their followers to come up. Instead they just intrigued against each other. But at least those leaders were respectable. Still their administration had collapsed. The peasant would not vote for the rich landlord who, on becoming a Minister, awarded himself a princely salary. Congress had won in Madras, but it needed to remain wary because its policies- e.g. promoting Hindi- were unpopular. That is why Swaminathan, in a coded way, is sayin 'Periyar is a debauched ego-maniac. If you follow him, he will do nothing for you. Congress will train you and promote you. The Mahatma does not go to prostitutes. He is respectful and respectable. Compared to him your Periyar is an idol with feet of clay.'
I should mention that Periyar's anti-Hindi campaign had given him a salience and popular support base which the big landlords and magnates lacked. Once the Dravidian parties gave up secessionism, they could monopolize power in Tamil Nadu because, to be frank, Congress is shit.
His last desire is to make himself indispensable… Neither Jawaharlal Nehru nor Rajendra Prasad would be what they are but for Gandhi;
We remember Periyar as standing in the way of more talented younger men like Annadurai. In that sense ,Swaminathan was a true prophet. But, the fact remains, the TamBrams made a mistake by backing Hindi and Gandhian vegetarianism and hyper-religiosity. More importantly, they didn't see that Ambedkar's gains would piss off the prosperous non-Brahmin Tamil castes who would avenge themselves on a class which, to be frank, was traditionally economically subservient, if not socially inferior, to themselves.
and yet neither is a mere yes-man.
Gandhi was a Bania but he had Brahmin and Kayastha and Rajput and even Muslim and Christian followers all of whom had received promotion and developed their own ideas. Nehru had come out as a Socialist. Others were more traditional. Congress was a broad tent. It had smart people. The Justice Party was for super rich or for crazy ego-maniacs who probably had syphilis coz they had travelled the world banging whores.
Mr Gandhi could make heroes out of common clay; what can he not make out of native gold? Anything, except mechanical images of himself.”
Look what Gandhi did for that cretin Rajaji. He is Premier of Madras. His dad was a village munsiff. His predecessor was the Raja of Bobbili whose estate comprised 150 villages. Join Congress if you want to rise. Join Justice if you are content to be a humble sycophant.
The barrenness of desolation
Having offered a salutary example, Swaminathan next held out a warning. Thus, he said: “But there are other leaders who do not trust their followers and will allow them no freedom of action, sticklers for a military discipline, preferring automata at their back to free and self-reliant workers by their side. Such leaders are like the tamarind tree, perhaps great in its day and useful in itself, but destructive of life and growth in others.
The aristocrats who had run the Justice Party were certainly men of substance. London listened when they spoke. Their lineage was distinguished indeed. But what did the Raja of Bobbili's followers gain by their sycophancy? Nothing at all. In the Congress administration you can see people of all castes who have risen from very humble beginnings. You can speak your mind and still rise. Look around, people with less education, lower social class, than you have become Ministers. White Civil Servants salaam them. Make your choice. Join Congress and prosper as you learn and grow in capacity. Or you can just be a sycophant or carry a spear for some Raja or some crazy ego-maniac. Make your choice.'
They tolerate no differences, they resent even friendly criticism.
These are the hallmarks of the Prince or the paranoid hatemonger.
They bear, like the Turk, no brother near the throne.
Princes were constantly poisoning each other. As for Periyar type wannabe-dictators- have you heard of the night of the long knives or the Moscow show-trials?
And when they go, they leave behind the barrenness of desolation.”
The Justice Party administration had been unlucky. The Great Depression had hit the Province hard. Meanwhile they had raised their own salaries. By contrast, Gandhi had marched for salt and spent years in prison. In any case, the voters had plumped for Congress. Accept the facts which are staring you in the face. With Congress you have a future. With Periyar you will have nothing but a past
What “our country needs to-day and what our hostels can help to produce”, said Swaminathan to the students of Annamalai University in 1938, was a number of political leaders “each a little above the average. I don’t think we shall have much permanent use for a single Superman so much above his fellows that between him and them a deep impassable gulf for ever remain.”
Think of jail as a hostel which is completely free. Congress will turn your prison cell into a University in politics. You won't turn into a Periyar who has travelled the world or a Raja of Bobbili, but you may get a seat in the Legislative Assembly and then you may be inducted into the Cabinet.
I recently came across the text of Swaminathan’s lecture in his papers and read it with a shock of recognition,
Everything Guha reads turns out to be a warning from history. When he goes to a Udupi restaurant and reads the menu, the words 'Masala Dosa' morph into 'Modi is Devil!'
The fact is Swaminathan was talking to mainly Tamil or Telugu students. He was asking them to take the Gandhian, not the Periyar, path. He doesn't mention Hindi, which was sensible. Kamaraj, who got elected the previous year, never learned English or Hindi to any high standard. But he was once a 'kingmaker' in Indian politics. Swaminathan may have been over-egging the cake, but it was cake nonetheless. What Guha has got hold of is not cake. It is a cow pat. Why? Guha does not know as much Tamil political history as even I do- and I left the place more than five decades ago.
since the warnings he issued in 1938 are even more – indeed, far more – relevant to the India of 2022,
He issued a warning to Tamils. Was he right? To some extent, yes. Stalin is the son of Karunanidhi who was Chief Minister. This is dynasticism. On the other hand, Swaminathan was wrong about 'regionalism'. The Dravidian parties performed better than the all-India parties because they were more focused in their approach. True, there was corruption and there was hooliganism but at least we saw the dial move on human development indices. In any case, when the film industry did a reverse takeover of politics, politics improved because the film industry is more responsive to changes in public tastes. Growth brought its own challenges but they can only be solved on the basis of 'subsidiarity'- quick and effective decision making as close to the problem as possible.
We want Stalin to do well. What COVID showed up is that only Chief Ministers, not the Prime Minister or the Central Government, can bring about sustainable development. We want the Chief Minister in each State to be charismatic and focused on growth and 'deliverables'. Anti-incumbency falls when you have a strong CM. This is the trend you see all over India. Modi became PM because he delivered as CM. We want more such people because then we get a bigger menu of choice for the top job.
when we have a prime minister who has built around himself what may be – because of the colossal amount of party and government money spent on its making and the sheer number of human beings who participate in it – the greatest personality cult in the history of the world.
This is foolish. Modi is a pracharak of the RSS. Once they find a better vote catcher or his health begins to fail they will bench him. He'll be perfectly happy, in the warm embrace of the Sangh, writing poetry and growing out his beard and giving inspirational talks. What the BJP has done is build up its party structure. There is little point investing in 'personality' when you may have to make a scapegoat of your current mascot.
Interestingly, Krushchev coined the term 'cult of personality' to describe Stalin- which coincidentally is the name of the CM of the State from which Guha's, and my, ancestors come from. Perhaps Guha knows he will get in trouble if he speaks out against a guy whose party spokesperson just endorsed Periyar's call for the genocide of Tamil Brahmins. Or perhaps Guha is simply doing what he is paid to do in a mechanical manner and without any application of mind.
I have previously written in these columns about the prolific manifestations and dangerous consequences of Narendra Modi’s cult of personality. So I won’t rehearse those arguments again; instead, let me note that this tendency towards the personification of power is visible not only in the Union government but in many state governments as well.
Indeed, it is observable through out the Public Relations industry. However, for the Left there was a specific meaning to 'cult of personality'. Guha is ignorant of this. But most readers of this blog will know that the two Napoleon's were accused of subverting the two French Revolutions and leading them into bourgeois paths. Lasalle too was suspect in this respect. That is why the Marxists concentrated on being as boring and bureaucratic as possible. Stalin was the master 'faceless' bureaucrat. It was in his interest for Trotsky- who was a successful military leader- to be cast in the role of 'the Napoleon of the Bolshevik revolution' more particularly because Trotsky had originally been Menshevik. Stalin's own personality cult was excused as being necessary to counteract that wicked Trotsky. But Hitler and Stalin and Mao didn't just spend money projecting their own image. They killed and tortured and incarcerated vast numbers of people.
Mamata Banerjee may, when it comes to elections to the assembly and to Parliament, be bitterly opposed to Narendra Modi; yet her style of politics markedly resembles his.
She wins elections but does so in the Bengali style- which is a bit rougher than the Gujarati style. Stalin wins in the Tamil style. Naveen in the Odisha style, etc, etc.
She seeks to embody, single-handedly and in her own self, the Trinamool Congress, the government of West Bengal, and the past, present and future of the Bengali people themselves.
She overthrew the Commies. God bless her.
This attempted fusion of leader with party, government and people by Mamata Banerjee at the level of her state closely mirrors the attempted fusion of leader with party, government and people by Narendra Modi at the level of the nation.
Nonsense! Mamta created the TMC. Modi is RSS but the RSS doesn't always get its way in the BJP. They wanted Advani, but Advani insisted that Vajpayee get the top job. It remains to be seen whether Modi can adjust to the challenge posed by a younger generation of leaders. He must not make Nehru's mistake and stay on too long.
The parallels do not end here. Trinamool MLAs and MPs talk in cravenly sycophantic terms about the chief minister of their state, just as Bharatiya Janata Party MPs and ministers talk in cravenly sycophantic terms about the prime minister.
This is because what Mamta and Modi have accomplished is quite exceptional. Who thought Mamta could bring down the Left Front? Who thought Modi would last as CM of Gujarat, let alone be a two term PM?
On the other hand, there are some critical voices in both parties. The question is not whether they talk to the Press but whether they are listened to by their leaders.
Banerjee, like Modi, likes working through loyal and often pliant bureaucrats and police officers. Like Modi again, she may pay lip service to the freedom of the press and the autonomy of institutions, but in practice would be quick to suppress that freedom and deny that autonomy if they were to threaten her rule.
Of which CM is this not true? The question is why a Tambram won't mention Stalin. Why blabber on about Bengal?
What Mamata Banerjee seeks to do in West Bengal, Arvind Kejriwal seeks to do in Delhi, Pinarayi Vijayan seeks to do in Kerala, Adityanath seeks to do in Uttar Pradesh, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy seeks to do in Andhra Pradesh, K Chandrashekar Rao seeks to do in Telangana, and Ashok Gehlot seeks to do in Rajasthan.
They want to govern their states properly. How very naughty of them! Why can't they just write books about the Mahatma instead?
These seven chief ministers, ruling in different parts of India and belonging to seven different parties, are all authoritarian both by instinct and in their style of rule. (My list is illustrative, not exhaustive – there are several other chief ministers who seek to personify their state and elevate themselves far above their fellows).
The enigma is Naveen Patnaik. Why does he have such a hold over his people? It is said he still can't speak their language properly (his nanny was British and Mum Punjabi) and reads out Odia speeches in Roman alphabet. Nobody could call him authoritarian. He is a patrician with a soft heart. But, surely, it is administrative talent which keeps him in office.
Had Professor Swaminathan been around to observe these chief ministers,
He would only have been concerned with Stalin whose party spokesperson is talking of genocide for Tamil Brahmins. Why would he bother his head with far Bengal? He himself, like Guha, like me, was a Tamil Brahmin.
he might well have said of these leaders that they tolerate no differences, they resent even friendly criticism. That they prefer automata at their back to free and self-reliant workers by their side. That they are destructive of life and growth in others. That they seek to make themselves indispensable, showing no interest in (or indeed aptitude for) training capable successors. That they elevate themselves so far above their fellows that a deep and impassable gulf between the Superman (or Superwoman) and the citizens they are in theory answerable to remains.
Guha is under the impression that politicians are supposed to train their successors. Some may delegate duties. Others, who wish to retire, may anoint or train an heir. But this not a requirement of their profession in a democracy. Why? It is the job of the opposition to find a better candidate and thus to give the electorate a choice. Guha does not understand this. He himself is a pedagogue. Thus he thinks everybody should be a pedagogue. A wife should train her maid servant to please her husband in bed. The husband should do the same with respect to the pizza delivery boy. No doubt, some such arrangement may contribute to Guha's own marital felicity but such is not normal practice.
Before I am accused of equivalence, let me state that I recognise that these are different kinds of authoritarianism, with different kinds of impact. Modi, at the national level, and Adityanath, in India’s largest state, combine authoritarianism with majoritarianism, namely, the stigmatisation and persecution of religious minorities.
But genocide threats against Tambrams are cool because they belong to the religious majority.
Modi and Adityanath are also arguably more ruthless in misusing state power to suppress the media and incarcerate political dissenters. That said, it can scarcely be disputed that the politics of Mamata, Kejriwal et al is likewise centred on the consolidation of personal power and personal authority by using State power and public funds towards those unsalutary ends.
So, this South Indian sees nothing sinister in any Southern state. All problems are created by those ghastly North Indians.
India imperilled
Cults of Supreme Leaders have usually flourished in totalitarian regimes,
Which other sort of regime has a 'Supreme Leader'?
whether military dictatorships, fascist States or communist regimes. The fancy that one individual, even, indeed especially, if he or she occupies the highest political office, can embody, represent and direct the will of all citizens is profoundly antithetical to the idea of democracy.
No. No mere idea is antithetical to democracy. I'm welcome to believe that my neighbor's cat is the Supreme Leader of the Galaxy. Indeed, this might be termed a charming eccentricity. However, if I start hanging around Buckingham Palace and asking for Supreme Leader, the Queen, to end the rail strike, I may be arrested and sectioned under the mental health act. Why? A person who believes that a constitutional monarch or a prime minister has supreme power may well pose a danger to himself or others. Guha hasn't quite reached that stage. But he's getting there.
As we enter our 75th year of Independence, we are increasingly becoming a democracy ruled by individuals with authoritarian and even despotic tendencies. This is bad for our minds – making them chained and uncritical instead of open and free – but bad for our lives too. Leaders obsessed with power and self-promotion will neglect the everyday responsibilities of development and governance.
No. They will have to do development and governance or else they will lose office. Guha does not grasp that Democracies have elections every few years. Moreover, if governance declines, party members may rebel and chose a different leader. Guha lives in a fantasy world where husbands train the Pizza boy to sexually fulfil their wives and where no PM or CM ever has to face an irate electorate.
Leaders who centralise all decision-making in themselves, refusing to empower or trust ministers and public servants, are unsuited to effectively administering a large, populous, diverse state like West Bengal, let alone India itself. Leaders who hear endless praise of themselves from a closed circle of chamchas will make far worse prime ministers (or chief ministers) than leaders who have an active feedback loop, who accept and respond to criticism from political colleagues, political opponents, and an independent media.
Very true. Also leaders who fail to breathe in after breathing out are at risk of dying of suffocation.
Our country’s economic promise will not be redeemed, our social harmony will not be enabled, our national security will not be assured by having a single Superman running the government of India from New Delhi.
Nor will it be advanced in any way by pointing out the bleeding obvious. Still, Guha gets paid for giving us a giggle at his lack of knowledge of how History works.
That an authoritarian prime minister is complemented by so many authoritarian chief ministers further imperils our prospects as a nation.
Only if Guha is right. But he is wrong. Authority is costly to enforce. We are content if some gangster are shot 'while trying to escape ' and some trouble makers have their houses bull dozed.
India, as well as Indians, will be far better served by leaders who can listen and learn – both from domain experts and from the citizenry at large – who can delegate authority to their ministers (and accord credit to them when that is due), who can respect the autonomy of public institutions and the freedom of the press, who can forego name-calling in favour of a constructive dialogue with the political Opposition.
No. India will be better served by better fucking service. Not listening or learning to listen or respecting or prospecting or dialogue or monologue. Swaminathan was good at his job. His students learned to read and write good English. His brothers were very good at their jobs- one was a Doctor, the other a Scientist. All three were honored with the Padma Bhushan award. Why? They did the job they were paid to do very well. That is all we ask from our politicians. Why? That's all that matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment