02-16-2005, 04:32 AM
Book Review: Rescuing Nehru by debasing Patel: The myth-making continues
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rescuing Nehru by debasing Patel: The myth-making continues
There is a disconnect between Zachariah's views and those of an increasing number of Indians who would rather see Nehru as a politician whose tenure in office had its share of successes and failures, a mere mortal with his own share of virtues and vices <b>Kanchan Gupta </b>
NEHRU, BY BENJAMIN ZACHARIAH , ROUTLEDGE/ROLI BOOKS, Rs 350
The biography industry is lucrative business, more so in idolatrous countries like India where men and women of flesh and blood are often placed on a pedestal for a worshipful society to pay its ritual obeisance. Compared to any other developing country, leave alone the developed parts of the world, India has a far larger number of public holidays to "observe" death anniversaries and "commemorate" birth anniversaries. If Indians, politicians included, were to genuinely believe in rededicating themselves to the ideals and idealism of the country's claimed heroes, then ours would have been a robust nation, free of the debilitating diseases, many of which seem to have set in terminally, that afflict the world's largest democracy.
The large number of books on Jawaharlal Nehru, with a new one being published every couple of years, can be construed as testimony and tribute to the genius and wisdom of the man who became the first Prime Minister of independent India, and continued to hold office till his death in 1964. There is so much to Nehru and his contribution to India, it would seem, that just when we are told the definitive book on modern India's modern icon has been published, another book pops up claiming to have discovered a new facet to his life and times.
<b>A lot many of these books, of course, fall into the category of hagiographies. Others are sensible and few of them preachily, ponderously so.</b> Then there are authors like Stanley Wolpert, whose Nehru: A Tryst With Destiny was a delightful read, not least because of the wicked bits about our hero in drag and other trivia of his sex life. <b>Distinctions of scholarship, or the lack of it as is the case with hagiographers, apart, most authors of books on Nehru invariably end up telling the same tale, though their storyline may marginally differ. It must be a tough job, writing on a person who has already been much written about. That job is made all the more difficult by the fact that Nehru was a prolific writer and much of his writing is autobiographical, introspective and self-critical. </b>
Benjamin Zachariah, in his book, Nehru, seeks to tread paths not trodden before. Setting out the reasons that propelled him to put together what is a fine example of scholarship and a book that will appeal to both the initiated and the uninitiated, he says, "One of the major tasks of this book is to rescue Nehru from the mythologies that his supporters, his detractors, and he himself, did so much to create; mythologies that have been influential in academic and non-academic circles both within and outside India."
In writing this book, Zachariah sets out to separate fact from fiction. He wants to discover the real Nehru, his book is a self-confessed journey of rediscovery. <b>After all his effort, he comes up with a Nehru who already exists in many other books; in bits and pieces he reconstructs his rescued Nehru as a visionary with a remarkable worldview, an internationalist who remained with the woolly headed left much to the sniggering disdain of the right in the Congress and elsewhere, a politician who used the masses to his advantage and that of the Congress, though he never saw himself as one with the masses, and a nationalist who was never at ease with the idea of national chauvinism which has endeared him forever to those who question the legitimacy of Indian nationalism and Indian nationhood. </b>So what's new?
<b>He questions the logic and reason of others in the Congress who dared criticise Nehru or fault his thinking. Maulana Azad is rebuked for suggesting that Nehru's duplicitous stand on the Cabinet Mission plan forced Mohammed Ali Jinnah to strike an extremist posture whose immediate fallout was the horrendous massacre of Hindus by rampaging Muslim League mobs on "Direct Action Day", August 16, 1946.</b> "Azad's retrospective account, however, never questioned, nor found worthy of mention," says Zachariah, "Jinnah's opportunism in calling for something that he might well have anticipated, especially in the context of the uneasy and tense environment of 1946, would lead to violence; it would seem that Jinnah's lack of principles could be taken for granted."
In his effort to "rescue Nehru from the mythologies" surrounding him, Zachariah ends up pandering to views that have contributed to the mythmaking in the first place. <b>He is amazingly harsh on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who would have been the first Prime Minister of independent India had Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi not backed Nehru, a move that did not enjoy the unequivocal support of the Congress Working Committee which in those days was not a gathering of individuals bereft of self-esteem.</b> There is also an overwhelming emphasis on Nehru's 'leftism', which, in his lifetime, Nehru used to construct the grand "Nehruvian model" that in the subsequent decades would push India down increasingly into the netherworld of non-development.
Piqued by an unfriendly review of his book, in which the reviewer had questioned the validity of Zachariah's criticism of Sardar Patel, he has responded angrily in an online rejoinder: "If Patel had had his way... Indian citizenship, one way or another, would have privileged 'Hindus', reducing Muslims and other minorities to the implicit status of foreigners... On Patel as a Hindu sectarian, therefore, I stand by what I wrote: among other things, he blocked Nehru's attempts to move against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh after that organisation's involvement in the murder of Gandhi, preferring instead to incorporate its less 'extreme' elements into the Congress..." <b>Who's to tell Zachariah that what he stands by is a wholesome part of the mythology that has been carefully constructed around Nehru by fawning mythmakers? Or, that it was Nehru who invited the RSS to participate in the Republic Day parade after the humiliating failure of his China policy that led to India's Himalayan blunder?</b>
<b>There is a disconnect between Zachariah's views and those of an increasing number of Indians - most of them are not "Hindu sectarians" - who are increasingly sceptical of the mythical Nehru as repeatedly constructed by scholar-authors like Zachariah. They would rather see Nehru as a politician whose tenure in office had its share of successes and failures, a mere mortal with his own share of virtues and vices.</b> Old mythologies are no longer believed; new mythologies are unlikely to find any takers. Zachariah hates the cliché "falling between two stools", but it is truly applicable to his meandering endeavour.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rescuing Nehru by debasing Patel: The myth-making continues
There is a disconnect between Zachariah's views and those of an increasing number of Indians who would rather see Nehru as a politician whose tenure in office had its share of successes and failures, a mere mortal with his own share of virtues and vices <b>Kanchan Gupta </b>
NEHRU, BY BENJAMIN ZACHARIAH , ROUTLEDGE/ROLI BOOKS, Rs 350
The biography industry is lucrative business, more so in idolatrous countries like India where men and women of flesh and blood are often placed on a pedestal for a worshipful society to pay its ritual obeisance. Compared to any other developing country, leave alone the developed parts of the world, India has a far larger number of public holidays to "observe" death anniversaries and "commemorate" birth anniversaries. If Indians, politicians included, were to genuinely believe in rededicating themselves to the ideals and idealism of the country's claimed heroes, then ours would have been a robust nation, free of the debilitating diseases, many of which seem to have set in terminally, that afflict the world's largest democracy.
The large number of books on Jawaharlal Nehru, with a new one being published every couple of years, can be construed as testimony and tribute to the genius and wisdom of the man who became the first Prime Minister of independent India, and continued to hold office till his death in 1964. There is so much to Nehru and his contribution to India, it would seem, that just when we are told the definitive book on modern India's modern icon has been published, another book pops up claiming to have discovered a new facet to his life and times.
<b>A lot many of these books, of course, fall into the category of hagiographies. Others are sensible and few of them preachily, ponderously so.</b> Then there are authors like Stanley Wolpert, whose Nehru: A Tryst With Destiny was a delightful read, not least because of the wicked bits about our hero in drag and other trivia of his sex life. <b>Distinctions of scholarship, or the lack of it as is the case with hagiographers, apart, most authors of books on Nehru invariably end up telling the same tale, though their storyline may marginally differ. It must be a tough job, writing on a person who has already been much written about. That job is made all the more difficult by the fact that Nehru was a prolific writer and much of his writing is autobiographical, introspective and self-critical. </b>
Benjamin Zachariah, in his book, Nehru, seeks to tread paths not trodden before. Setting out the reasons that propelled him to put together what is a fine example of scholarship and a book that will appeal to both the initiated and the uninitiated, he says, "One of the major tasks of this book is to rescue Nehru from the mythologies that his supporters, his detractors, and he himself, did so much to create; mythologies that have been influential in academic and non-academic circles both within and outside India."
In writing this book, Zachariah sets out to separate fact from fiction. He wants to discover the real Nehru, his book is a self-confessed journey of rediscovery. <b>After all his effort, he comes up with a Nehru who already exists in many other books; in bits and pieces he reconstructs his rescued Nehru as a visionary with a remarkable worldview, an internationalist who remained with the woolly headed left much to the sniggering disdain of the right in the Congress and elsewhere, a politician who used the masses to his advantage and that of the Congress, though he never saw himself as one with the masses, and a nationalist who was never at ease with the idea of national chauvinism which has endeared him forever to those who question the legitimacy of Indian nationalism and Indian nationhood. </b>So what's new?
<b>He questions the logic and reason of others in the Congress who dared criticise Nehru or fault his thinking. Maulana Azad is rebuked for suggesting that Nehru's duplicitous stand on the Cabinet Mission plan forced Mohammed Ali Jinnah to strike an extremist posture whose immediate fallout was the horrendous massacre of Hindus by rampaging Muslim League mobs on "Direct Action Day", August 16, 1946.</b> "Azad's retrospective account, however, never questioned, nor found worthy of mention," says Zachariah, "Jinnah's opportunism in calling for something that he might well have anticipated, especially in the context of the uneasy and tense environment of 1946, would lead to violence; it would seem that Jinnah's lack of principles could be taken for granted."
In his effort to "rescue Nehru from the mythologies" surrounding him, Zachariah ends up pandering to views that have contributed to the mythmaking in the first place. <b>He is amazingly harsh on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who would have been the first Prime Minister of independent India had Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi not backed Nehru, a move that did not enjoy the unequivocal support of the Congress Working Committee which in those days was not a gathering of individuals bereft of self-esteem.</b> There is also an overwhelming emphasis on Nehru's 'leftism', which, in his lifetime, Nehru used to construct the grand "Nehruvian model" that in the subsequent decades would push India down increasingly into the netherworld of non-development.
Piqued by an unfriendly review of his book, in which the reviewer had questioned the validity of Zachariah's criticism of Sardar Patel, he has responded angrily in an online rejoinder: "If Patel had had his way... Indian citizenship, one way or another, would have privileged 'Hindus', reducing Muslims and other minorities to the implicit status of foreigners... On Patel as a Hindu sectarian, therefore, I stand by what I wrote: among other things, he blocked Nehru's attempts to move against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh after that organisation's involvement in the murder of Gandhi, preferring instead to incorporate its less 'extreme' elements into the Congress..." <b>Who's to tell Zachariah that what he stands by is a wholesome part of the mythology that has been carefully constructed around Nehru by fawning mythmakers? Or, that it was Nehru who invited the RSS to participate in the Republic Day parade after the humiliating failure of his China policy that led to India's Himalayan blunder?</b>
<b>There is a disconnect between Zachariah's views and those of an increasing number of Indians - most of them are not "Hindu sectarians" - who are increasingly sceptical of the mythical Nehru as repeatedly constructed by scholar-authors like Zachariah. They would rather see Nehru as a politician whose tenure in office had its share of successes and failures, a mere mortal with his own share of virtues and vices.</b> Old mythologies are no longer believed; new mythologies are unlikely to find any takers. Zachariah hates the cliché "falling between two stools", but it is truly applicable to his meandering endeavour.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->