WEB Magazine Sections Interactive Features Regulars Resources RSS
review COMMENTS
An often nostalgic Guha progresses from the ‘loyal’ opposition of the early makers, radicalism of the independence struggle, to the questioning tone of later thinkers


Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles
Must See
Published
Daily Mail
Digression
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
1/D-135
Nov 06, 2010
11:24 PM
I can't believe the word 'historian' is used to describe both Guha and Lord Haw Haw aka William Dalrymple. Guha is scholarly and able to see the big picture, Dalrymple is the gossip and society editor of sundry Mughal courts.
Shubhang
New Delhi, India
2/D-6
Nov 07, 2010
01:45 AM
"Dalwai, writing in the 1960s, was able to pinpoint many of the conceptual problems that still face Indian Muslims. In his view, the ‘orthodox Hindu’ who agitates for a ban on cow slaughter and the ‘Muslim communalist’ who fights against modernity are followers of a corresponding agenda: “It must be remembered that the obscurantism of one community helps to strengthen the obscurantism of other communities."

I would say that this is good insight even today. Muslim obscurantists may be giving strength to Hindutvadi goons who beat up girls in bars or agitate against celebrating Valentine's Day.

>> In America at the moment, the grassroots protest movement known as the Tea Party puts great faith in the US Constitution.

It was amusing when the Republican Tea Party candidate in Delaware for Senate, Christine O'Donnell, had no idea what the First Amendment to the Constitution says!
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
3/D-8
Nov 07, 2010
01:55 AM
The mpostinteresting countries in the world are Russia, China, Germany, France, Japan.

India is trivial beside them.

Who is the Indian Dostoevsky, Marx?

Guha is great because his books help one sleep.

French is unreadable.
Ali Murtali
AURANGABAD, India
4/D-30
Nov 07, 2010
08:04 AM
Indira Gandhi does not appear because she belongs to the family that destroyed India. She was responsible for legalizing corruption and destroying the instituitions.
Manmohan the ghatia sardar does not appear beacuse he is an American stooge and Sonia Gandhi's lapdog.
Why Kanshiram ???? probably projecting behen Mayawati and creating one of the biggest demon of corruption.
Vallabh bhai Patel must have been there, otherwise whole of India would have been another Kashmir by courtesy studpid Nehru family.
Jitendra
Melbourne, Australia
5/D-52
Nov 07, 2010
11:57 AM
Patrick French & Ramachandra Guha? The association seems familiar. What Outlook is trying to create? A mutual back-slapper's club?
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
6/D-70
Nov 07, 2010
01:51 PM
After the imposition of 32 page Arundhati Roy,now you are trying to balance it, by giving so many pages to book by Ramachandra Guha,the Madrasi who has removed that 'n' from Guhan to appear as a north Indian.He is an anthropologist and cricket historian,and only a pretender to be a historian.His equating Savarkar with murderous Jinnah is only to become yet another secularist.
S.S.Nagaraj
Bangalore, India
7/D-87
Nov 07, 2010
05:54 PM
Just take a look at Patrick French's other articles.

"Gandhi Was A Wily Politician, Jinnah Remained A Secularist Till His Death"

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?203970

"The Popularity Trap"

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?204110

and many others in a similar vein.

In one article, he opines that it was said " .. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a learned if aloof figure who was frequently denounced by Jinnah and the Muslim League as the 'showboy' of an essentially Hindu organisation..." - indirectly agreeing with it.

His position is clear. Jinnah (of Direct Action Day fame) is a suited, scotch-drinking "Moslem" hero and Gandhi is a "Hindoo" Bania villain. Unlike Dalrymple, he does not pussy-foot on the issue.

And his recent paeans of praise to the reformists is in character - Backward, Hindu India being redeemed by the Christianity-influenced Constitutionalists (The India Gene Code).

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?266655

His own gene code being Abrahamic, belonging to the subtype called Judeo-Christian, can he really empathize with this Heathen Nation? No, he still is a patronizing white, like Dalrymple.
Birju Mahavir
Lucknow, India
8/D-125
Nov 07, 2010
11:03 PM
--"His equating Savarkar with murderous Jinnah"

Is this why both Advani and Jaswant sang the praises of Jinnah ? Jinnah was a secularist unlike the colonial apologist, Hindu extremist and Gandhi-murderer Savarkar.
Cata Maran
Soccer City, South Africa
9/D-94
Nov 08, 2010
08:02 PM
"Jinnah was a secularist"

By the lowest of the low standards. He didn't believe in a shared nationality or heritage. Nor did he, from the 30's onward use terms like secularism, pluralism, democracy and syncretism.

He just wanted power, and was extremely jealous of Nehru, Gandhi and Patel, whom he viewed as keeping him away from it. Hence, his instigation of the Moslems into violence and gangsterism.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
10/D-14
Nov 09, 2010
02:21 AM
Jinnah was a secularist unlike the colonial apologist, Hindu extremist and Gandhi-murderer Savarkar.
Cata Maran
Soccer City, South Africa

Jinnah was just another power hungry politician who changed political color when he saw the end of the road for him in Congress. And he chose to back the communal horse because that was the most convenient means for him to achieve his personal political goal.
It's easy to pick and choose from what he said or wrote during his lifetime and argue both ways. He appeared to be secular at one point of time and he appeared to be communal at another stage of his political career. He supported direct action and you know what followed were the riots of Bengal. Read his interviews in 1940s- by then he was a hard-core two-nation theoretician who championed the cause of the communal wing among the Indian Muslims.
Only after getting his beloved Pakistan through communal riots and bloodshed he gave a radio speech assuring all minorities that Pakistan will be a secular state. But nobody took him seriously - not even in his own country - because after reaching destination riding a communal tiger how can you disown communalists?
Advani and Jaswant perhaps wanted to settle a political score against Congress by praising Jinnah, but Jinnah was an ardent supporter of two-nation theory and an architect of post direct action communal riots. If he sounded secular, it was for political expediency after achieving a narrow political goal. His actions and not words speak for themselves.
Your dislike for Savarkar should not be a reason for defending Jinnah's secular credentials.
DC
NEW YORK, United States
11/D-18
Nov 09, 2010
03:05 AM
"Jinnah was a secularist "

Exactly. He perfectly fits into the current definition of secularist.
Maha
NJ, United States
13/D-91
Nov 09, 2010
05:07 PM
"I would say that this is good insight even today. Muslim obscurantists may be giving strength to Hindutvadi goons who beat up girls in bars or agitate against celebrating Valentine's Day. "

What Muslims did with Taslima Nasreen we are aware of it so and I live in Hyderabad so far I have not seen any Muslims girl without parda it shows how you people treat them. if I am not wrong the person who beat Taslim nasreen was Owasis's brother MIM leader.

Don't compare Muslims with Hindu at any point of time in your whole life we are far better placed then what you people have achieved in spite of mugals ruling this country for century.

Our Hindu girls still have more freedom then what your community girls have, so I think you will fail when freedom of expression and freedom of speech is compared between both community.
Jay
Hyderabad, India
14/D-100
Nov 09, 2010
07:29 PM
Well said, Jay. That is right on about the freedom issue. It also extends into the area of religion and theology.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
15/D-26
Nov 10, 2010
02:37 AM
Jay,

>> Don't compare Muslims with Hindu at any point of time in your whole life we are far better....

I don't think you understood what I said. Read my comment again.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
16/D-15
Nov 11, 2010
06:27 AM
Guha is great because his books help one sleep.
Yes,very true. I even snore less. Guha is a good prescription for sleep apnoea

French is unreadable.

But , you can have a read , if you are having a long haul in the toilet due to constipation.
gajanan
Sydney, Australia
17/D-50
Nov 11, 2010
06:16 PM
It is near impossible to produce a list of some nineteen odd personalities who shaped modern India to the satisfaction of each reader.Guha attempts to do the same.It is often seen that such an exercise ends up generating discussion on the omissions than the names which find an honoured place inside the book.Good or no good,it cannot be denied that personality centric analysis of history sells like hot cakes.
sunil kumar
delhi, India
18/D-51
Nov 11, 2010
06:18 PM
I have basic objection to give importance to individuals. I like system adopted by buffaloes. While sitting for rest they sit in their preferred direction and whole group moves in that direction.

We are seeing same kind of jerks fixing our agenda. We dont want criminal/politician decide our administration. We dont want a bureaucrat who after passing one examination is free for life to make money and stall decisions. We dont want some lowly paid journalist to guide politician.

We want to decide ourselves. If it is kashmir then we want to take decision and not some low intelligence interlocutors with liberal arts degree. We dont want arundhati, teesta, vandana shiva, guha, advani or rahul decide about us. we want to decide ourselves.

We need a radical change in system. We need official assertion of peoples desire. parliament dont represent peoples desire and guidance. We want MPs to ask their constituency and then vote and not as per whip. We need scrapping of this democracy and then rebuild new one which will be under order of people. we dont want to choose king . we want to be direct king.
Identity lost
vanuatu, Vanuatu
19/D-79
Nov 12, 2010
04:50 PM
We are a family of Guha's admirers, I concede. A historian's task is not easy, if he insists on the academic's balance and the scales of justice of an 'aware' sociologist. The field is vast that he has to pick, choose and kindle interest towards talking, thinking and writing. Ramachandra Guha has done a commendable job, that way. All said and done India is interesting and intriguing. Let the debate flourish.
S. Soundararajan
Portsmouth, United Kingdom
20/D-81
Nov 12, 2010
05:25 PM
Typical of patrick French's underpowered third-rateness to waste time reviwing the outporings of a dreary windbag like Guha.

How about French telling us what he thinks of the brilliant history by the hugely intelligent Madhusree Mukerjee of the great famine in Bengal in 1943 engineered by Churchill? French dealt with this topic in his overpraised book on Indian Indepence ("Liberty or Death") and it is instructive to compare Mukerjee with him.....The lovely Bengali woman, packed with intelligence and guts, is absolutely first-rate; French, the cynical sneering Britisher, is feeble.

Moderator's note: Please take the discussion about Madhursree Mukerjee's excellent book to any of the two relevant threads here:

http://www.outlookindia.com/peoplehome3.aspx?pid=13034&author=Madhusree+Mukerjee

Ali Murtali
AURANGABAD, India
  Order by BACK TO ARTICLE 
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: