Ramchandra Guha gives fresh insights on the lives and public careers of those long-serving Prime Ministers, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Indira Gandhi. But the book also writes with feeling and sensitivity about lesser-known though not necessarily less important Indians — peasants, tribals, women, workers, and musicians. We just providing the link already available on the internet.
You can purchase this book on Amazon. Which political model to choose? How to incorporate all the small kingdoms? How to form a government, how to write a constitution? How to distribute millions of ballot boxes to rural areas? How to divide the country into districts? How to please everyone? It is fascinating to see how much of all this depended on few people, most notably Jawaharlal Nehru, an amazing politician, which I hadn't known before. All the economic considerations and plans were also new to me, as were details of Indira Gandhi's and Rajiv Gandhi's governments.
There is too little emphasis on popular, everyday culture for my taste, but at least there is a chapter on the Indian film industry.
View 2 comments. May 22, obh rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites , indian-ism. No doubt such a commentary has not been written about India after its independence. Detailed and lucid this book is a treat to all those who are interested in the "idea of India".
You will never be bored with this book. With all the surprises, the setbacks and, the pandemonium that is associated with Indian's freedom, we can surely say that democracy has not lost "India is no longer a constitutional democracy but a populist one" , this is one of the hard hitting ideas which this book puts forward.
With all the surprises, the setbacks and, the pandemonium that is associated with Indian's freedom, we can surely say that democracy has not lost in India. It has become weak, but not lost. I can only hope that India becomes more secular, with poverty less pervasive and "where the mind is without fear and the head is held high".
The biggest challenge to our democracy comes from within, in the form of corruption. Many tend to believe that ills like overpopulation, illiteracy, etc. I tend to think it's corruption. Last year we saw mass movements by groups led by apolitical people unified against corruption. We saw a union minister going to jail, the CM of a state resigning and many such events.
But in a state where majority of the employees are corrupt all this is like a drop in the ocean. The Lokayukta bill Ombudsman law has not seen the day of light, since first being introduced many decades ago. Majority of politicians across party lines are conjoined to this evil of corruption. The government portrays itself as the saviour of the common man, only to forget its own manifesto once voted to power.
Corruption is the evil, the virus, which kills everything and the society as a whole disintegrates. An analogy can be drawn with the AIDS virus, which does not kill, but renders the immune system too weak to defend against anything else. I have met people who talk about the old days of glory, when public servants were honest and politicians more austere. Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake. Predictions are thick and fast to come, I won't predict, only hope that my country becomes what the founding fathers of freedom wanted it to, and take back its rightful place in history.
My own view — speaking as a historian rather than citizen — is that as long as Pakistan exists there will be Hindu fundamentalists in India. In times of stability, or when the political leadership is firm, they will be marginal or on the defensive.
In times of change, or when the political leadership is irresolute, they will be influential and assertive. This sweeping history was a revelation. I feel as if I was simultaneously dazzled and lost. My chief response was a desire to read more both by My own view — speaking as a historian rather than citizen — is that as long as Pakistan exists there will be Hindu fundamentalists in India. My chief response was a desire to read more both by Nehru as well as about him.
I pondered concepts like communalism all week and made comparisons with other places, other history. Nehru apparently once confessed to Andre Malraux that his greatest challenge was creating and maintaining a secular state in a religious country. It was interesting how in the Nixon biography I recently read much was made about how Nixon felt Nehru and Indira Gandhi looked down upon him, a grocer's son. Little of that surfaced here--which is appropriate when considering the grand grievances of Nixon.
People have been predicating the doom of India since its Independence, some are now predicating that half of the nation is becoming California, the other half Chad.
The resilient Indian embrace of democracy is the most encouraging, especially as across the world the institution appears to be falling from fashion.
Jul 09, Shailee Basu rated it it was ok. Informative, only if you're looking for a North Indian narrative of "India".
The imagination of India is still majorly a North Indian idea. Narratives from South is minimal, East and North East is little to none, you'll find this in the book too. Obviously, this was expected but definitely not from a historian like Guha with Bengali roots, genuinely believed that he would pen down a more diverse and inclusi Informative, only if you're looking for a North Indian narrative of "India".
Obviously, this was expected but definitely not from a historian like Guha with Bengali roots, genuinely believed that he would pen down a more diverse and inclusive history of India After Gandhi. Yet another reminder that miles to go before India becomes inclusive. Diversity is one thing, inclusivity and equality of diversity is another. View all 5 comments. It's a slightly strange genre, these giant histories of the present.
This kind of thing is inevitably always only a skimming of the surface, even if it is pages long. The point would have to be to find some shape to that surface, some grasping to It's a slightly strange genre, these giant histories of the present.
The point would have to be to find some shape to that surface, some grasping towards a unified theory of the thing. Guha, however, has the benefit here of working with a continent-sized place which is a single country, so theres an order of magnitude more detail about Indian political history than about any single government in Europe or Africa.
This is also kind of the book's downfall though. A political history of modern Indian is - seemingly inevitably - focused on the Congress Party. The Party is inevitably focused on the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Despite the massive scope, the book feels a little thin at times. The cast of characters, so to speak, remains relatively limited.
Figures like Ambedkar or Vajpayee show up I think - as someone totally unfamiliar with the issues - I would have appreciated more of a follow through of those ideologies and political currents, understanding more of how they interacted with and influenced rule, than another political shenanigan pulled off by Nehru et all.
Theres just so much here that merely summing it all up is too much information already, but I still felt that somethng of the grand shape of things, even on the most superficial level, was still out of my sight.
Regionalism, communalism, populism, language, caste, religon As a total aside, in a chapter about entertainment at the end, he mentions that the Independece movement always had a puritanical streak and that Gandhi apparently never saw a movie all the way through!
That's fascinating to me. What happened to that? Where did it meet Indian society? How do these things carry through? Not that there isn't a solid effort to get at social history- there is, as well as technological, cultural and economic.
All of it is fascinating and none of it is quite enough. Maybe it's because I couldn't help comparing it to Israel at times. The scale is so ridiculously different, and yet there are familiar beats to the broad outline. On the one hand, it kind of makes me feel a little more normal, to think that this is just the way these things play out. On the other hand, it's probably not a very good comparison and sent me looking for patterns that might not exist.
If there is a connecting thread that he attempts to follow through, it's the question of democracy on this vast - and varied - a scale.
It's amazing to see some of the disdain the very notion of democracy in India was held in at the beginning. Could this many people, unconnected, uneducated, make meaningful political decisions? It jumped out at me, the occassional mentions of groups of people mired in poverty, still, as the years go by, into the 21st century, and I wonder if everything just went over them or if it mattered there.
Well, they end up voting for populists and demagogues and sons-of and movie stars. So, they're pretty normal, really. I think the ultimate conclusion, despite Guha's final fairly complex and not unpessimistic assessment of the state of Indian democracy, is that it really, really matters. Very recommended, even if it mostly raised more questions than it answered, for me.
View all 9 comments. Sep 20, Anirudh rated it liked it Shelves: history. A good compilation of post independence Indian history by Ramachandra Guha. It also gives a good perspective to understand present day India. The book is rich in detail and the writing style of Guha is brilliant and makes the book a very interesting read.
But at a few places Guha does compromise objectivity in favour of Nehru, especially in his telling about Nehru's grand centralized socialist economy and his foreign policy of Non-Aligned movement India and the Non-Aligned Movement. In short, the pros of the book — The period between and , the making of the constitution and the consolidation of the princely states was very well covered. It could have been made better by covering in more detail Ambedkar's contribution,and his story and how he came to be in the Constituent Assembly in the first place.
This part of the book makes the whole book worth reading. The reordering of the states on linguistic lines and Potti Sriramulu's battle. The cons of the book are — The author has hardly written about Indian politics since Rajiv Gandhi's time.
Guha goes off on a tangent about the role of cricket, Bollywood and other cultural events. Nothing gets spoken about the liberalization of , the effect of the collapse of the Berlin Wall on India, Pokhran nuclear tests, the Bofors scam etc..
The events that take place after have been given very little space in the book. I personally think that this was done because it becomes impossible to tell India's tale beyond without pointing out the many mistakes made by Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which the author seems very reluctant to do Should have covered the period of emergency and the Janata Party's first non-congress government that followed in more detail.
A certain amount of objectivity would have been good while discussing Nehru's policies and his five year plans in the s and the events that led up to the Indo-China war.
I hear the book covers post events in more detail, should check it out. But overall the book is well written and definitely worth a read a couple of reads actually. Sep 21, Shruti Buddhavarapu rated it it was ok Shelves: aai-own. Pretty informative View all 3 comments. An excellent, thorough history of modern India, post-independence. The first half, covering the decades under PM Nehru and the drafting of the Indian Constitution, is really inspiring. Nehru was an idealist who believed in social change; he worked with B.
Ambedkar, an Untouchable who was the primary draftsman of the constitution, to keep India as a secular state and to overturn the caste system. Nehru also worked to protect minority groups such as women and Muslims, to create an economic and so An excellent, thorough history of modern India, post-independence.
Nehru also worked to protect minority groups such as women and Muslims, to create an economic and social system that would enable the poor and underprivileged to improve their circumstances, and to create a truly democratic and united country.
He and his home minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, were able to merge diverse people of many languages, religions, and cultures into one democratic nation. In the second half, things begin to crumble.
It is ironic that Nehru's own daughter, Indira Gandhi, was able to unravel much of his accomplishments. After her dictatorial reign as PM, India was ensconced in cronyism, nepotism, and identity politics that still plague it today. India now has many political parties, but they focus on simply furthering one group's agenda, based on their caste, religion, province, or otherwise. It is said that in India one doesn't cast a vote, one votes their caste.
My husband says Indians love their pithy puns, but he's one to talk. Idealism and visionary thinking have been eroded with corruption and single-minded politics. Rather than taking grievances to the courts, or to the paralyzed government system, citizens take to the streets in riots that quickly turn violent. There have been cases where the government has stood by, or even encouraged, mob violence against a particular minority group. Still, India remains a democracy, and for that we must give it credit.
One of Guha's central themes is how it has survived as such. Recently a man named Anna Hezare has been in the Indian news. He has been fasting and attracting many followers with his call for the Parliament to pass his proposed anti-corruption bill. He had enough support that Parliament is currently in the process of passing his bill calling for stricter watchdogs on the government. Obviously, such a bill is clearly needed; on the other hand, when will Indians learn to rely on the courts rather than showmanship and mob rioting for desired change?
And when will the institutions become something the citizens can rely on? I don't know what qualities a good history book should possess, I'm no expert. Despite this, this book remains one of the most entertaining reads that I've had a chance to indulge in. My respect for some of the founding members has grown manifold, independent of whether I agree with their policies.
Indian TV and cinema which by the way, is also touched upon in the book! I'm pretty sure that they are influenced by some of the amazing gift-o I don't know what qualities a good history book should possess, I'm no expert. I'm pretty sure that they are influenced by some of the amazing gift-of-gab orators that the country seems to produce, without fail.
I recommend prison life not only for aspiring writers but for aspiring politicians too. Gadgil, Congress Politician These are some of the many gems you can find in this book. Another amazing aspect of this book is the sources cited. The rest of the book is just the sources. Although I haven't had a chance to go down the rabbit hole, just the fact that I can reinforces my belief in the quality of the research that went into it.
As the author rightfully points out, no version of history is untainted by the writer's opinion. In spite of, or even with that warning, I think this book has helped me gain great insight into the country that is India, today. India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, by Ramachandra Guha, is a deep and fascinating examination of the world's most populous democracy from the death of Gandhi to The book begins by examining the fracturing of the Indian National Congress, with Pakistan and India splitting into two nation states.
This led to a massive influx of internal refugee movements, and widespread violence between Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities. It is estimated more than one million p India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, by Ramachandra Guha, is a deep and fascinating examination of the world's most populous democracy from the death of Gandhi to It is estimated more than one million people died in this communal violence throughout India and Pakistan.
Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated during this split by a Hindu extremist. Gandhi sorely wished to see India and Pakistan unite as one nation, but his wish was ultimately dashed. His successor in the Congress, Jawaharlal Nehru strove to keep Gandhi's vision going. Nehru was an extremely adept politician, and one of the most widely respected characters in post-independence India.
What he inherited were some issues, however. The British had left, but a collection of over Princely States in India remained. It was the Indian governments goal to incorporate these states and Pakistan's too. Many of these states were small collections of villages, but some were massive, and yearned for independence. Hyperbad was a large state in south central India. It had long existed as a vassal to the Mughal Empire, and this treaty was inherited by the British Raj.
After independence, the Maharaja of Hyperbad sought to keep his state independent. He set up armed forces to try and resist Indian occupation, and sought international support for his cause.
India sent in thousands of troops and annexed Hyperbad soon after independence. Tranvacore was another valuable Princely state. Situated on the Indian coast, it had an efficient government, contained resources to construct nuclear devices, and had the backing of the British.
The leader of Tranvacore also sought independence, but was attacked by Indian nationalists, and in hospital, gave his approval to join India. Kashmir, however, was the sore spot. Kashmir was a strategically important state touching Himalaya mountains. It was largely Muslim, but its ruling class were anti-Pakistan for political reasons.
During the trouble of Partition and the subsequent refugee crisis, Kashmir was a bastion of stability. All this changed when tribal groups from Pakistan entered Kashmir to try and force its annexation to Pakistan. India retaliated with troops of its own, and general conflict began. When the dust settled, the area was split between Pakistan and India - the situation that largely exists today. This conflict has yet to be resolved, at the time of writing. Nehru's India was chaotic, and many predicted it would fall to military rule after his death.
The internal situation in India was fractured, due to the multitude of religious, ethnic, cultural, language, caste groups, ideologies and so on. The system of regional states within India was difficult, as many individual groups vied for their own independent states.
Tribal groups in eastern India, like the Naga and Mizo fought pitched insurgencies the Naga for independence, or created political groups to try and create their own states Jharakand, Mizoram etc. Gujarati speakers did not want the city of Bombay to join the state of Maharashtra.
Sikhs in the Punjab region also wanted their own state. The language of India was also contentious. What should be the language of the political centre and its courts? Some in the southern states cried foul when Hindi was proposed, and wanted the main language to remain English.
On top of this, the complex caste system of India created situations of intolerance and favouritism. Those from the untouchable Caste struggled to find employment, and were discriminated against in every day life. Tensions existed between various castes and often flared up into violence.
Hindu extremism, characterized by the RSS party, sought to end Indian secularism and create a Hindu state. This too resulted in violence between Hindu and Muslim communities. Nehru balanced all of these issues fairly well, while keeping India on its democratic course. Nehru had little real political challengers during his tenure, as he was Gandhi's chosen successor.
Nehru's Congress Party dominated India's political sphere for his 15 years in office. He deftly sidestepped challengers, and was able to hold his own during periods of strife and conflict. He fought hard to keep India from succumbing to Communalism on one had, and Communism on the other. He faced challenges from Hindu Nationalists. He supported state-led developmentalism, moving toward a more Soviet style economy.
This had mixed results in India for a number of reasons, but did successfully start India down the road to Industrialization. Nehru's foreign policy situation was also tricky. Originally, Nehru sought warm ties with China, but these ties soured over territorial disputes in the Himalaya's, resulting in war between India and China in the 's, which led to the loss of territory in both Eastern India and in Kashmir.
China then sought relations with Pakistan. India also had frosty relations with the United States. On the surface, India and the US have much in common. Both are large and successful democracies. Both secularist. However, India's experiments with socialist economics and policies, and the USA's prioritization of relations with Pakistan, and subsequent arms deals soured all attempts.
India turned to the Soviet block for support. Even still, Nehru sought a middle road, and promoted non-alignment in Asia. Nehru passed away during the Sino-Indian conflict, and was succeeded briefly by another Prime Minister, who also died soon after.
His daughter, Indira Gandhi, succeeded to lead the Congress, and would dominat Indian politics for the next 16 years. She saw the annexation of Goa from Portugal, the incorporation of French remnants on the Indian subcontinent, the incorporation of Sikkim, but most importantly, a smashing victory over Pakistan. In , East Pakistan rose up in revolt against West Pakistan. The Bengali's of East Pakistan did not have political representation, and were long abused by Islamabad.
India supported Bengali independence with a direct invasion, and helped proclaim the independence of Bangladesh after a brief occupation. These victories were strategically used by Gandhi to stay in power. Indira Gandhi's political and economic moves were more autocratic than her fathers.
Gandhi supported a centralization of economics, and derided free trade or liberalization. She sought closer ties still with the Soviets, and helped build up the armed forces of India to become a regional player, and a direct challenge to China. On the political front, she struggled with political representation, and after protests and communal violence erupted throughout the nation, she proclaimed a state of emergency, jailing all political opponents and stifling the press.
This state of emergency led to an easing of economic and social tensions, but was deeply unpopular for obvious reasons. Indira seemed set to create a dictatorship in India, and had been promoting her son, Sanjay Gandhi, as her successor. Thankfully, after a year of emergency rule, she suddenly released all political prisoners, and held fresh elections, which she lost to a coalition of Hindu nationalist parties, regional parties, and a defection of older Congress politicians. This coalition would only last three years in power, as it succumbed to internal political tensions, and Indira Gandhi was reelected to power once more.
This time in office saw her son Sanjay die in a plane accident, and she promoted her other son Rajiv Gandhi. However, she moved away from her authoritarian past, as she required coalition support to ensure an electoral majority. She chose the communists as a political partner - this cementing her state-run economic ideals. She also went on a charm offensive in the west to promote India's image.
During this time, ethnic and religious tensions again flared, resulting in conflicts across the country, and violent communal violence. Gandhi: The Years That Changed the World, will not be bettered, and it is essential reading even for those who do not think of themselves as India buffs, because Gandhi is a maker of our whole modern world.
Published by : Asia Publishing House Courtesy : www. Gandhi With an introduction by : C. Andrews Published by : G.
Gandhi Compiled by : U. Pravesh Chander With a Foreword by: Dr. Sarojini Naidu Courtesy : www. Muzumdar Courtesy : www. OverDrive uses cookies and similar technologies to improve your experience, monitor our performance, and understand overall usage trends for OverDrive services including OverDrive websites and apps.
We use this information to create a better experience for all users. Please review the types of cookies we use below.
0コメント