Home > Work > Makers of Modern India

Makers of Modern India QUOTES

5 " சாதி அடிப்படையிலான அணுகுமுறையைக் கை விட்டுவிட்டு சாதி மற்றும் மதச்சார்பில்லாமல் பொருளாதார அடிப்படையில் மட்டுமே மக்களுக்கு வசதிகளையும் உதவிகளையும் அளித்து அவர்களுடைய நிலைமையை உயர்த்தவேண்டுமா, வேண்டாமா என்பதுதான். பொருளாதார அடிப்படையில் இதைச் செய்யத் தீர்மானித்தால் சாதியின் பெயரால் ஏமாற்றுவது முடிவுக்குவரும். இந்த வசதிகள் மற்றவர்களுக்கும் கொடுக்கப்படும். இப்படிச் செய்வதன் மூலம் மக்களுக்குத் தரப்படும் வசதிகள் அவர்களிடையே வேறுபாடுகளை உருவாக்குகின்றன என்றும், அது ஒரு புதிய சாதியையே உருவாக்குகிறது என்றும், ஏற்கெனவே இருந்த பிற்பட்ட சாதிகளுக்கு ஒரு பலனும் கிடைப்பதில்லை என்றுமுள்ள குற்றச்சாட்டுகளை நாம் தவிர்க்கலாம். இந்தப் "

Ramachandra Guha , Makers of Modern India

7 " This wider history notwithstanding, I believe India still constitutes a special case. Its distinctiveness is threefold. First, the tradition of the thinker-activist persisted far longer in India than elsewhere. While the men who founded the United States in the late eighteenth century had fascinating ideas about democracy and nationhood, thereafter American politicians have merely governed and ruled, or sometimes misgoverned and misruled.1 Their ideas, such as these are, have come from professional ideologues or intellectuals. On the other hand, from the first decades of the nineteenth century until the last decades of the twentieth century, the most influential political thinkers in India were, as often as not, its most influential political actors. Long before India was conceived of as a nation, in the extended run-up to Indian independence, and in the first few decades of freedom, the most interesting reflections on society and politics were offered by men (and women) who were in the thick of political action. Second, the relevance of individual thinkers too has lasted longer in India. For instance, Lenin’s ideas were influential for about seventy years, that is to say, from the time the Soviet state was founded to the time it disappeared. Mao’s heyday was even shorter—roughly three decades, from the victory of the Chinese Revolution in 1949 to the repudiation by Deng Xiaoping of his mentor’s ideas in the late 1970s. Turning to politicians in Western Europe, Churchill’s impassioned defence of the British Empire would find no takers after the 1950s. De Gaulle was famous for his invocation of the ‘grandeur de la France’, but those sentiments have now been (fortunately?) diluted and domesticated by the consolidation of the European Union. On the other hand, as this book will demonstrate, Indian thinkers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries still speak in many ways to the concerns of the present. A third difference has to do with the greater diversity of thinkers within the Indian political tradition. Even Gandhi and Nehru never held the kind of canonical status within their country as Mao or Lenin did in theirs. At any given moment, there were as many Indians who were opposed to their ideas as were guided by them. Moreover, the range of issues debated and acted upon by politicians and social reformers appears to have been far greater in India than in other countries. This depth and diversity of thought was, as I argue below, in good part a product of the depth and diversity of the society itself. "

Ramachandra Guha , Makers of Modern India