Saturday, November 20, 2004

More about Ram Guha

Ramachandra Guha has an interesting column on Dom Moraes in today's Hindu. But this post is not about Moraes, but about Guha. At some point in his article, he quotes Isaiah Berlin.

    Isaiah Berlin once described the political tradition to which he belonged as being composed of a "small, hesitant, self-critical, not always brave, band of men who occupy a position somewhere to the left of centre, and are morally repelled both by the hard faces to their right and the hysteria and mindless violence and demagoguery on their left ... This is the notoriously unsatisfactory, at times, agonising, position of the modern heirs of the liberal tradition."
Some hard faces on the right. On the left -- hysteria, mindless violence, and demagoguery. A liberal who sees more harm on the left than on the right? I think in Berlin's case, this is perfectly understandable. For,
    Isaiah Berlin’s response to the Soviet Union was central to his identity, both personally and intellectually. Born a Russian subject in Riga in 1909, he spoke Russian as a child and witnessed both revolutions in St. Petersburg in 1917, emigrating to the West in 1921. He first returned to Russia in 1945, when he met the writers Anna Akhmatova and Boris Pasternak. These formative encounters helped shape his later work, especially his defense of political freedom and his studies of pre-Soviet Russian thinkers. [From the description of "The Soviet Mind" at Amazon]
Guha is an ardent admirer of liberal sensibilities. He is a proud heir to the liberal tradition that Isaiah Berlin spoke of. He perceives a decline of the liberal thought in India, and often laments over that. For instance, see his EPW article -- "The Absent Liberal". So far so good. But as a historian based in India, is it okay for Guha to be a verbatim Berlin? The single most threatening force in today's India is from the RSS, from the right. In India, you see "hysteria, mindless violence, and demagoguery" only on the right. You might see a few "hard faces" on the left though. (Irfan Habib is not a Narendra Modi, and Namboodiripad was not a Stalinist). Unfortunately, Guha often deliberately chooses to be verbatim Isaiah Berlin. He described himself at the Sydney Writers’ Festival (2003) thus:
    I describe myself as someone with moderate views with extreme expression… I am only just left of centre. I have found people that are far left can be much worse than far right views.
I only hope that he was misquoted.

5 Comments:

At 9:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ram guha might have a personal axe to grind with some left intellectuals, who can be as intolerant of dissidence as anybody else. that is a guess one could make from his statements - he seems to be airing a personal grievance rather than making an ideological statement. employing the quote from isaiah berlin is probably only a scholarly decoy.

and juxtaposing in comparison modi and habib seems a repetition of the error which is being attempted to be pointed out.

and as for the second quote from guha, he has a point. it is often empirically true that extreme left and extreme right are quite similar - ideology is pretty much like a horseshoe magnet where the two poles actually are (uncomfortably) close.

 
At 11:00 PM, Blogger Anand said...

Perhaps Guha has personal issues with a few "left intellectuals". Perhaps not. But several of his essays do indicate that he has problems with the "left". (That's perfectly fine by the way. I like Guha's writings very much).

Ideology being a horseshoe magnet: It's one's belief, and good imagery perhaps! I do not think it's true. I definitely do not think it's "empirically" true.

 
At 9:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

in the indian context, the left scores way above the far right, or the center for that matter (guha himself has emphatically noted at least once the near total absence of leftists among the ranks of the (in)famously corrupt politicians in india). however, from a global perspective, the horseshoe acquires a certain truth value beyond mere beliefs and prejudices - unless of course, if one were to say that what happened under stalin and mao was not "the real thing".

it appears that in india, the electoral process has, so far, kept the left anchored to its core human values better and enabled it to play a more purely constructive role (and saved it from running away to oppressive totalitarianism).

 
At 12:29 AM, Blogger Anand said...

According to me, you've got it absolutely right. Two things that place the Indian left on a high pedestal are (i) they gain (and lose) power through elections, and (ii) there's a vibrant inner party democratic machine; their own leaders are always elected. Thus even when they are able to form the government for a period continuously, there are certain checks and balances; nobody gets absolute power.

 
At 2:28 AM, Blogger Aswin said...

I am pretty new to the blogosphere and seeing many prominent journos/writers..I shot off a mail to Ram Guha asking him to blog, so that there is a one-point access to his stuff. He said he will make an effort after "The Modern History of India" is completed!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home