Desicritics Comments on Book Review: Vishnu's Crowded Temple: India Since the Great Rebellion by Maria Misra

Comment by Vinod Joseph

Tue, 6 Jan 2009 05:39:04 EST

"Does the book mention why Gandhi didn't undertake a fast-unto-death (as he did so often) to convince Jinnah and ML to change their minds about partitioning India?" Nope. Basically most Congressmen were happy with partition. They didn't want to rule a country with a large Muslim majority. Gandhi was unhappy but reconciled to the inevitable. At least that's how remember it in Misra's book. I have now lent the book to a friend and don't expect to get it back for a while.

Comment by kaffir

Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:34:20 EST

"I have great admiration for Bapu, but there are certain things that he professed, a few experiments he conducted, that aren't easy to understand." His trysts with his grand-niece Manu as well as his explanation of his "experiment" can be found in the "Deleted Scenes" section of the latest DVD release of Attenborough's film. ;-)

Comment by kaffir

Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:22:13 EST

Does the book mention why Gandhi didn't undertake a fast-unto-death (as he did so often) to convince Jinnah and ML to change their minds about partitioning India?

Comment by Vinod Joseph

Mon, 5 Jan 2009 05:18:36 EST

Kerty, the Congress has always espoused the cause of the poor, projected itself as anti-rich and has done precious little for the poor. Gandhi was very close to the Birlas. In fact, he took up residence at Birla House in Delhi, where he lived till he was assassinated. It is true that Gandhi was never 'Hindu' enough for many people, one of whom murdered him. He also did not talk of Hindu supremacy. However, in his own inimitable way, he was very much for maintaining Hinduism as it was, with little change. He did not even want the caste system to be dismantled. I recommend that you read Misra's book – she deals with all these issues and does a very good job of it as well.

Comment by commonsense

Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:23:54 EST

Kerty: "The problem with any chronicle of current or historical account of events is that one can be very selective and subjective, and conjure up self-serving understanding by cherry-picking, re-interpreting, spinning." So true!! It's disgusting! But there are exceptions of course, which Kerty's natural modesty and humility does not allow him to bring up: Ruvy and Kerty.

Comment by kerty

Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:20:19 EST

Vinod "Gandhi had not woven the tough, rough-textured and inclusive fabric he had originally designed. Rather, the Congress nation was silk not khadi. Threads from the prosperous peasantry, urban petty bourgeoisie, the progressive intelligentsia and big business had somehow been woven into a single cloth. But it was distinctly frayed at the edges. Skeins of regional, Muslim and low caste politics hung loose and it would prove difficult, if not impossible, to weave these back into a united and independent Indian nation." I think this is serious misreading of Gandhi and events led by his politics. It was Gandhi, in his quest to be inclusive and present a unified movement, who brought in combative and incompatible Religious and Caste platforms into freedom movement, but his ideology could not pragmatically deal with contradictions created by them. Although freedom movement sought to free India from British, Gandhi's rainbow coalition never saw British as evil force - some of them saw Hinduism, caste, upper caste, Brahmins, landed class etc as more evil than British, and used the freedom movement to blackmail and extort, and Gandhi tried to appease them to keep them united under one freedom movement platform. Gandhi ended up creating a rainbow coalition whose rainbow political platform has endured till date as a dominant political establishment in India. Gandhi tried to be inclusive and centrist, appeased them all and yet pleased none. The first casualty of his so-called inclusive platform was Hindus and anybody else who disagreed with Gandhi - who ended up dropping out and floating their own platforms, a phenomina that has endured till date in Congress party - whoever does not agree with Nehru clan or does not get accommodated on Congress platform end up floating their factions. Therefore, it would be incorrect to claim that Gandhi weaved a coalition of prosperous peasantry, urban petty bourgeoisie, the progressive intelligentsia and big business. In fact, Gandhi showed nothing but contempt for them and arrayed politics of extortion and blackmail against them. It has been a typical of extortion and appeasement politics to accuse Gandhi/congress of being pro-hindu, pro-rich, pro-uppercastes, pro-brahmin, pro-majority etc, and Gandhi/congress would predictably bend over backward to win the accusers over in order to prove they are inclusive and not pro-hindu, pro-uppercaste. pro-rich, pro-majority etc. Gandhi is the father of such politics.

Comment by kerty

Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:36:23 EST

Vinod The problem with any chronicle of current or historical account of events is that one can be very selective and subjective, and conjure up self-serving understanding by cherry-picking, re-interpreting, spinning. The same is true about events surrounding freedom movement and Gandhi.

Comment by Vinod Joseph

Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:10:07 EST

I have great admiration for Bapu, but there are certain things that he professed, a few experiments he conducted, that aren't easy to understand. Mahatma Gandhi did not want the caste system to be dismantled, though he was against untouchability. Like many others, most probably he too did not like the idea of Brahmin Indira marrying Parsi Feroze and having children. The suggestion that Indira and Feroze remain celibate after marriage most probably stems from that.

Comment by Deepa Krishnan

Sat, 3 Jan 2009 07:43:40 EST

I wonder why he said it should be celibate.

Comment by temporal

Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:40:14 EST