Tags:
Journalism of Courage
What,precisely,does the Congress party stand for? This is a question that has been asked many,many times since Independence,and the Congresss metamorphosis into an electoral platform. The answers have been many and have often been deliberately left ambiguous,aiding the partys claim to represent many,sometimes conflicting,streams of thought. Yet this inability and unwillingness to define itself has traditionally weakened its power to articulate a vision for its future,as well as paradoxically increasing the incidence of back-biting and indiscipline. Which is why the release,on its 125th anniversary,of an authorised history of the party is something that deserves the closest possible attention. The book is titled Congress and the Making of the Indian Nation,which is an indication of its central conceit,that any history of the Congress will be a reasonable history of modern India. But it will be read and re-read for smaller details: how does the panel of friendly historians,supervised by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee,present Indira Gandhis attitude to factionalism? Whats their summary of the reconciliation,under P.V. Narasimha Rao,of liberal economic reform with fidelity to the language of old-style Nehruvian socialism? How are non-Nehru-Gandhi Congressmen,especially those who rose in revolt against the Family,dealt with? The answers are sometimes surprising: the first Congress split is dealt with dispassionately,Kamaraj and Sanjeeva Reddy even finding a place on the cover of the book in a visual sequence that features Subhas Chandra Bose and Acharya Kripalani,also men who left the Nehru-Gandhi Congress,and which,fascinatingly,concludes with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Narasimha Rao is not on the cover,but his governments achievements are ungrudgingly highlighted. Its possible to believe that the Congress is willing to embrace a history of itself that accepts and highlights the contributions even of those seen,subsequently,as disloyal. But that belief shouldnt be taken too far. The very writing of the book,by historians close to the Congresss current leadership who are comfortably ensconced in positions of influence,reveals the incompleteness of inclusiveness. The beginnings of openness in authorised histories are all very well; but this is also a reminder that the partys stranglehold over the telling of modern Indias history is far from weakening. A genuinely modern party would be willing to open archives,to let a thousand unauthorised histories bloom. And that would,in turn,force it to define what was wrong with such histories and clarify what it,in the end,stands for.
