"The Miracle that is India": Book Extracts and Review

Exclusive Book Extracts
The Miracle That Is India
As India turns 60, we present extracts from Ramachandra Guha's new book on India's history since 1947. It's a history we're still making.
Ramachandra Guha: Outlook India.com: May 7, 2007

The Sikhs may try to set up a separate regime... and that will be only a start of a general decentralisation and break-up of the idea that India is a country, whereas it is a subcontinent as varied as Europe. The Punjabi is as different from a Madrassi as a Scot is from an Italian. The British tried to consolidate it but achieved nothing permanent. No one can make a nation out of a continent of many nations.
—General Claude Auchinleck, writing in 1948

When Nehru goes, the government will become a military dictatorship—as in so many of the newly independent states, for the army seems to be the only highly organised centre of power.
—Aldous Huxley, writing in 1961

The great experiment of developing India within a democratic framework has failed. (Indians will soon vote) in the fourth—and surely last—general election.
—The London Times, in 1967

In May 2004, the Republic of India held its 14th general elections. Four hundred million voters exercised their franchise. The ruling alliance, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, was widely expected to win by a comfortable margin, prompting fears of a renewal of the margin, prompting fears of a renewal of the 'Hindutva' agenda. As it happened, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance defied the pollsters and came to power. The outcome was variously interpreted as a victory for secularism, a revolt of the 'aam admi' against the rich, and an affirmation of the continuing hold of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty over the popular imagination. In the larger context of world history, however, what is important is not why the voters voted as they did, but the fact that they voted at all. Ever since the 1952 elections were described as the "biggest gamble in history", obituaries have been written for Indian democracy. It has been said, time and again, that a poor, diverse and divided country cannot sustain the practice of (reasonably) free and fair elections.
Yet it has. In those first general elections, voter turnout was less than 46 per cent. Over the years, this has steadily increased; from the late 1960s about three out of five eligible Indians have voted on election day. In assembly elections, the voting percentage has tended to be even higher. When these numbers are disaggregated, they reveal a further deepening. In the first two general elections, less than 40 per cent of eligible women voted; by 1998, the figure was in excess of 60 per cent. Besides, as surveys showed, they increasingly exercised their choice independently, that is, regardless of their husband's or father's views on the matter. Also voting in ever higher numbers were Dalits and tribals, the oppressed and marginalised sections of society. In North India in particular, Dalits turned out in far greater numbers than high castes. As the political analyst Yogendra Yadav points out, "India is perhaps the only large democracy in the world today where the turnout of the lower orders is well above that of the most privileged groups."

For Complete Article, click here

Also see:
Kashmir is a ‘genuine international dispute’
*Indian historian defends Pakistan’s claim on Kashmir
By Iftikhar Gilani: Daily times, May 5, 2007

NEW DELHI: An Indian historian has defended Pakistan’s claim on Kashmir, saying it is a “genuine international dispute”. Ramachandra Guha, author of ‘India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy’, has also tried to differentiate between other troublesome Indian locations and the Jammu and Kashmir issue.

Guha says that while the Indian Constitution is competent enough to find solutions for the problems in the Northeast and naxalism, it cannot cope with the Kashmir issue. He said a sense of discrimination and victimisation were the main problems in the Northeast and Naxal-affected regions. In Kashmir, however, he said the matter was altogether different.

Guha may well be the first Indian author to adopt such a non-conventional stance-on Indian disputes with Pakistan. “We are responsible for creating Bangladesh how can Pakistan ever be expected to forget that? Kashmir is not an easy issue to resolve. Our [India’s] legal, constitutional and moral claim over it is less than foolproof. That is not a matter of debate,” said the author in an interview in a forthcoming issue of the weekly ‘Tehelka’.

Quoting Sheikh Abdullah’s saying that “Kashmir is a beautiful bride being fought over by two avaricious men,” Guha said that number of men had now increased to three with the jihadis also joining in the fight. “Kashmir is a dispute between India and Pakistan there is no argument there. I am also not saying, of course, that Pakistan has an incontrovertible claim over the valley,” Guha added.

Supporting the idea of some kind of joint sovereignty the Indian historian maintained that a solution could not lead to one side claiming victory over the other. “It [a solution] must secure the dignity of Kashmiris and must ensure that minorities in either country are protected,” he said. “Maybe we need some kind of Andorra-style joint sovereignty or maybe just soft borders. It must be worked out. Perhaps if a referendum is held, the Kashmiris will finally want to join us based on our [India’s] buoyant economy rather than Pakistan,” Guha added.

Criticising the behaviour of Congress and the BJP, the two major Indian political parties, the author asked Indians to refrain from being “properly bipartisan” with regard to Kashmir. “Atal Behari Vajpayee was the first prime minister to go to Kashmir in two decades. A PDP-Congress government was in power and Sonia Gandhi asked her people to boycott his meeting. Such actions are ridiculous and detrimental to the peace process,” he said. He said Gandhi’s actions that day had been “an insult to the Constitution”.