Indira Gandhi & the Years that Transformed India - by Srinath Raghavan - A Review

Comments on the book

"Indira Gandhi and the Years that Transformed India" - by Srinath Raghavan.

The book is a deep and well done analysis of the rise to power by Indira Gandhi in India and its lasting impact on that nation and world politics too.

Hers was an ascent marked by a disdain for the oligarchic control of the old guard on the Executive through the party machinery and resources, a total disregard for conventions and sometimes even the law of the land and its Constitution, and an unfettered power grab that could only be described as Caesarism. It was enabled by important socio-political factors that include: larger number of voters, particularly the poor and the labor class, participating in the elections; larger number of the previously ignorant middle and lower classes becoming aware of what the rich enjoy and how they, the poor, are exploited, fooled with false promises, and kept poor; social unrest induced by overall economic decline and lowering standards of living for the milddle and lower classes.

Even reading through the prologue of the book should give one a better understanding of the crisis that has dawned on the US, crisis being defined beautifully right at the start through a quote that describes it as consisting "precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born."

The old order of party driven politics and control by party bosses may have come to an end here in the USA thereby marking the ongoing death of the old, but the new cannot be born at least as a normal child unless law and order prevails and the state returns to Constitutional democracy true to the promises of its founders with power returning to the people from the new oligarchs and the super rich and the bigots backing them. The parallels between Indira Gandhi's rule and what obtains today in the US permeate the entire book, although the author makes no attempt whasoever to draw any such parallel and that optic is of this reader. Here is a great example of a sentence: "the price of surmounting this crisis [caused by trying to stack the Parliament, Cabinet, and Supreme Court with loyalists] via a Caesarist style was the thinning out of serious political talent, and the emergence of a sycophantic symphony that accompanied the prime minister's imperial rule."

The saving grace for India was that the courts by and large fought for their independence curbing what could have turned into a dictatorship. Also, Indira Gandhi's commitment to help the poor was genuine; she also saw them to be her real power base. What goes on here in the US, however, appears to be a curse on us for the laughs US had on India and Indira's emergency.The motives are not to uplift the poor and with that the nation, but to line pockets of vested interests.. Thus, whether this dying of the old engenders the birth of a healthy baby or of a totally grotesque one for the long haul depends heavily on democracy being reasserted along with the rule of law as administered impartially and fearlessly by our courts. And, it depends most importantly in the electorate becoming more knowledgeable and not being driven by demogoguery, false promises, and racist scapegoating. There are indeed some lessons for USA coming from the experience (details of which from the book I have omitted) of the largest democracy of the world which stood by the democratic form government despite the serious challenges it faced. India's status as a major economic power is testimony to the wisdom of that choice.

CARNATIC MUSIC - HOW MUCH OF A LIVING ART FORM?

   The question posed in the title may indeed sound strange given the large number of concerts and other activities related to Carnatic music that take place not only in India but also internationally in many foreign nations.  But, it is indeed prompted by some important considerations.   

   Take any article or public scholarly discussion related to the art form, compositions, composers etc.  The focus is nearly 100% on persona and work that seem to be on the dead and gone, and even among them the most focus is on the far too distant.  Certainly, many of them like the Trinity Saint Thyagaraja, Sri Muthuswami Dikishitar, and Sri Shyama Sastri as also those like Sri Purandaradasa and Sri Annamacharya and many others need to be venerated, and their work do provide more scope for exploration than what has already been done.  Similar comments hold for performing musicians too; rarely does a scholarly discussion of great musicians or banis or whatever involve as the subject a living person or anyone recent.   Under these circumstances, the question in the title does indeed assume a level of legitimacy that cannot be ignored. Is such absolute focus on the distant past an impediment to the sustenance of the art form through inadequate encouragement of new players and their contributions of significance?

   One can see three important reasons for this.  One is that scholarly discussions and anlyses are best done after the work attains reasonable exposure and informal recognition.  The second reason is that the society has become litigious, and in a nation like India even unintended libel, an inherently civil offense that should engender only civil penalties except in the cases involving serious malice, is treated as though it were a crime and may  engender even arrest.  The third is certainly an inability of most segments in this art community to acknowledge fellow contributors, and the inherent but not explicit camps and divisions based on guru parampara, bani, and the like.  One of the sad consequences of it is that reviews of concerts have become more sycophantic praises and rarely analytic and critical as they used to be in the past.  Certainly, no one wants the acerbic vitriol of some of the old reviewers, but without critical reviews, can the art form maintain its quality? [See my blog
https://veeraam.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-critique-of-critics-and-criticisms.html

that was also published as an article long ago in the magazine Sruti].

    As a rasika deeply interested in learning more about the art form and its present status and modern creators and contributors, and in the continuance of its excellence, I think there is indeed a need to remedy the situation.  For a starter, critics should be given reasonable license to critique.  As a scientist, I was always aware that any scientific work I put out is open to comments, criticism, refutation, etc.  We don't sue each other as long as such things are conducted in a scholarly way, and most often even when they are not; we also have camps of our own based on methodology and foundational bias.  Yet, the good scientists celebrate new developments and are even willing to use and follow them.  Why is it not so in this art?  Is it just a matter of egos, or the lack of any requirement for continuing education to keep up with current trends?  Should organizations like AIR and Doordarshan organize continuing education programs and require recertification to keep one's status as many other professions do?  Also, there needs to be a greater sense of camaraderie and mutual cheering among participants to keep the art form even more alive, and for new and fresh contributions of all kinds to occur continuously.  A simple way of showing it is by making time to attend others' programs, particularly of the young and upcoming, at least occasionally.  Without all these, the art form itself may end up like Sanskrit that at one time flourished and was the Lingua Franca of Bharat and is in need of frequent and constant resuscitation now. 

   It is important that scholars include in their citations and references contributors also from the post-Trinity period.  Not to include living members of the community may be reasonable, but to ignore totally more recent members of any or all types is certainly not advisable.  Perhaps, an eminent organization like the Madras Music Academy, Narada Gana Sabha, or Shanmukhananda can lead with a series of lecdems on 19th and 20th Century Carnatic composers.

   Certainly, in putting this out I may be inviting adverse and opposing comments, criticisms, etc., which are most welcome as long as they are backed by good reasoning.  But kindly bear in mind to keep them constructive and displaying a spirit of moving the art form forward.  Thank you.