Tag: Politics

79 Years of freedom: Are We free Enough To Disagree?

At 79, I don’t believe the question is whether India has succeeded or failed. To me, India remains very much a work in progress—walking, sometimes running, occasionally stumbling, but certainly on the path to success.

As expected, yesterday WhatsApp became extraordinarily patriotic. Videos and messages arrived from folks one hadn’t heard from since the last such occasion. And, of course, there were the many prescriptive and doomsday messages, which I deleted with equanimity…

Last evening, a few families caught up for dinner. There were enough of us with divergent views on the current dispensation, its policies and the overall prevailing environment. And, with that, enough and more debates and disagreements ensued.

Disagreements apart, one thing was clear: none of us was any less Indian, nor did any of us mean ill to the nation.

Let me sneak something in here, though. I love conversations that are objective, without conveniently adding “context” merely to defend a point already made. When I see bias creeping in, I smile and let it go. But then, just maybe, the person across the table is doing the same with me—for I may have the blind spot too!

After reading from and about the many stalwarts who strove hard for our independence, it is obvious that they shared an objective while often taking vastly different paths towards it. And, boy, what ferocious disagreements they had! Between Ambedkar, Bose, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Savarkar, there were probably more hues of opinion than even 256 shades of grey could accommodate. There was certainly no homogeneous view about the path India should take towards freedom, or subsequently towards development.

Freedom is my right to question any or all of them—and to allow others to do so with the same spirit.

Perhaps democracy requires us to practise three freedoms.

The freedom to speak.

The freedom to disagree.

And the much harder one—the willingness to allow others to exercise the first two without immediately questioning their intelligence, motives or patriotism.

Social media has given every Indian a printing press, a television studio and, occasionally, the confidence of someone who has read neither side of the divide.

Democracy isn’t tested when we agree. It is tested by what we do with disagreement.

And perhaps we should “let a hundred flowers bloom” – although borrowing that phrase from Mao to make a case for free expression does come with a rather large historical asterisk!

One thing, though, I would like to claim that I always listen patiently to opposing views. My family may wish to exercise their democratic right to disagree.

Perhaps maturity as a democracy isn’t about everybody reaching the same conclusion. It is about reaching different conclusions without concluding that the other person is an enemy.

So, yesterday I stood for the flag and celebrated the extraordinary, argumentative, frustrating, chaotic and fascinating nation that is India.

And I listened to someone I disagreed with.

Perhaps, at 79, that’s also a small celebration of freedom.

History Never Whispered. We Simply Stopped Listening.

People often ask me why I spend so much time reading history. After all, we already know how the story ends.

Rome falls.

Empires collapse.

Wars are fought.

Treaties are signed.

Nations gain independence.

Sometimes, only to be divided again.

Spoiler alert: nobody lives happily ever after.

Yet I keep returning to history—not because I want to memorise dates (which, I must confess, I am rather hopeless at), but because I want to understand people. Why did events unfold the way they did? What motivated individuals and nations to make the choices they did? And perhaps most interestingly, how have the interpretations of those events changed over time?

The more history I read, the more convinced I become that while technology changes every decade, human nature changes every few centuries… if it changes at all.

I often wonder when this fascination with history began. What I do know is that the more I read, the more I realise just how little I actually know. Every new book reminds me that what I have learnt is merely the tip of an enormous iceberg.

Whether it is the civilisational journey of India across the millennia, the rise and fall of the Mongols, European history, the two World Wars )it is a different matter that I call the first one just a “Great War” rather than a World War), East Asia, or the creation of modern nation states in West Asia, every subject reveals yet another layer waiting to be peeled. History, I have realised, is an onion with no end.

The reading list keeps growing. The Story of Civilization (an absolute must for any armchair critic like me), Revolusi, The Balkans, India: A Sacred Geography, The India They Saw, The Golden Road, A History of the Ancient Near East, A Line in the Sand, Jerusalem, Armies of Sand, along with biographies and autobiographies of Bose, Churchill, Deng Xiaoping, Gandhi, Nehru, Savarkar, Zhou Enlai and many others. Then there are books like An Era of Darkness and Imperial Twilight…

At this point, I have probably bought enough history books to qualify for honorary membership of several publishing houses. The challenge now is not buying them—it is finding enough years to finish reading them!

These books have done far more than teach me history. They have challenged assumptions I didn’t even know I held, while reinforcing others with greater conviction.

I am reminded of the African proverb:

“Until the lion learns to write, every story will glorify the hunter.”

Or George Orwell’s observation:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Every historian brings a perspective. Every generation asks different questions. As geopolitical realities evolve, so too do historical interpretations. Reading multiple viewpoints doesn’t necessarily tell us who is right; it helps us arrive at better-informed opinions.

History isn’t a museum exhibit or an artefact to admire from behind glass.

It is a mirror.

When we read about civilisations, leaders, revolutions or inventions, we are really reading about ordinary people making extraordinary decisions whose consequences continue to shape our present.

Then there are the irresistible “what ifs.”

What if Hulagu Khan had not been recalled while marching towards Egypt after sacking Baghdad?

What if Hitler had pushed on to Moscow differently?

What if Savarkar had successfully escaped at Marseilles?

What if Gandhi had not called off the Non-Cooperation Movement after Chauri Chaura?

History cannot answer these questions, but they certainly make for fascinating conversations.

Across all these centuries, the tools have changed.

Human emotions have not.

Fear.

Ambition.

Greed.

Hope.

Curiosity.

These have survived every civilisation.

One of the biggest lessons history has taught me is this: reading one book gives you information; reading five books gives you perspective.

Some historians admire empires.

Others dismantle them.

Neither is necessarily wrong.

Neither is ever complete.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the conversation between them.

History rewards curiosity, not certainty.

Whenever I finish a history book, I rarely come away with more answers.

Instead, I find myself with better questions.

And perhaps that is the real value of reading history.

I often wonder: is the past merely a reflection of the future, or is the future simply another chapter of the past?

I have stopped reading history to discover who was right.

I read it to understand why intelligent people, looking at the same facts, could sincerely arrive at completely different conclusions.

Perhaps if more of us did that, we would spend a little less time arguing about the past…

…and a little more time learning from it.