Viswanathan K's Thoughts

In Missing in Action , Pranay Kotasthane looks at how the concept of the nation called India evolved at independence. It had to be different from its (British) predecessor for multiple reasons. The predecessor form of government (1) answered to the British Parliament; (2) had limited powers; and (3) was elected by a small electorate. None of these attributes could be retained in independent India, obviously.   Several leaders at the time of Independence felt that society was too mired in regional identities, superstition, caste and religion. They felt that it was the responsibility of the state (independent India) to change society to move away from these tendencies. “The modern Indian constitution in its intent… was fashioned to be a tool not just for an economic and political revolution, but a social revolution.”   One can certainly understand that intent. Inevitably though, the state became increasingly paternalistic – it knew what was good for society and the i...

The title of the book was provocative but intriguing – Bose or Gandhi: Who Got India her Freedom? Taken at face value, the answer is obvious: whoever or whatever events got us independence, surely it could not be Bose. After all, the man and his Japan backed-Indian National Army (INA) were defeated by the British after some initial successes, chased out of India. In any case, all that during World War II. Bose then died in an air crash, and we got freedom 2 years later in 1947. Case closed, right?   A more accurate title of GD Bakshi’s book would have been “Role of INA in India’s Freedom”, but that’s nowhere near as catchy, is it? But that is what the theme of the book really is – not Bose, but the INA .   The INA were (largely) soldiers of the British Indian Army who turned against the British and joined hands with the Japanese under Bose. While Bose may have died, not every solider in the INA died (obviously not). After World War II, the British brought them back ...

Freedom at Midnight does an awesome job of describing the events leading upto and following India’s independence and partition. By the time India became a Republic on 26 th January, 1950, writes Sanjeev Sanyal in Land of Seven Rivers : “India’s borders were recognizably like those that we know today.” The keyword there is “recognizably”.   Because there were still some things to wrap up, says Sanyal: “The Indian government now turned to the tiny enclaves along the coast held by other European powers.” France, for examples, still held 5 enclaves, as scattered as Pondicherry and Karaikal (on the TN coast), Chandannagar (north of Calcutta), Yanam (on the Andhra coast), and Mahe (on Kerala’s coast)! The French were reluctant to hand these over, but the writing was on the wall: their holdings were too tiny and too scattered. And so, unlike the brutal way they tried to hold on in Algeria and Vietnam, the French handed their 5 enclaves to India by 1954.   That now l...

To summarize the story so far , using words from Barbara Tuchman’s book, The March of Folly : “The British believed… in imperial terms as governors to the governed. The colonials considered themselves equals, resented interference and sniffed tyranny in every breeze over the Atlantic.” The Americans soon realized they could hit England where it hurt, without firing a shot: by reducing British imports and start manufacturing themselves. The slide down the slippery slope had started. England’s response was “asserting a right you know you cannot exert”. The “terrible encumbrance” of pride and principle were beginning to trump pragmatism. Of course, some of the thinking was rational: if they let the Americans act this way, would the Irish do the same? And so, from here on, every act on either side was misinterpreted: “(The Americans) assumed the British were more rational, just as the British government assumed they were more rebellious, than was true in either case.” And as mo...

“No taxation without representation”. And the Boston Tea Party. That’s about all I knew about American independence. Until I read Barbara Tuchman’s awesome book, The March of Folly . It all started with the Seven Years’ War, a war over who controlled America: the British, the French or the native Indians. The British won; and so America became a British colony. After that arose the fairly reasonable question in England: shouldn’t the colony pay for its continued protection from the native Indians and the resurgent French? The Americans, however, didn’t think of it that way: they felt the money would be used to pay British troops to act as “a rod and check over us”. The seeds of mistrust were sown. The topic of taxation brought with it an unintended debate. Unlike most other colonies, the inhabitants of America (leaving the Indians aside) were British citizens . And so they asked for the “Englishman’s right not to be taxed except by his own representatives”. How come the Engli...

Most people have problems accepting parts of an idea or an ideology. They prefer an all or nothing choice. In some cases, that makes sense, like when one part of the ideology will necessarily cause a particular consequence that you find abhorrent. Thus, Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian streak is what caused a Bangladesh to be created and also an Emergency to be imposed. But Gujarat’s rating on almost all economic progress parameters is not caused by the BJP’s Hindutva ideology; which means you should be able to admire Modi as CM while still hating Godhra. Unfortunately, most people can’t make such distinctions. Fortunately for India, during our independence struggle, both Gandhi and Nehru were men capable of such distinctions (I personally don’t agree with either on all their post-independence decisions; but on many counts, I do agree with them). Thus unlike other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, India could separate the components of Western ideologies and pick and ...