But a historian has the privilege to say, 'Wait a minute, the glass is half full.' He makes this statement for two reasons. One, from the perspective of hindsight -- that when India gained independence in 1947, most Western observers had written it off. Not just reactionary imperialists such as Winston Churchill, but also sympathetic friends of India such as Aldous Huxley. Huxley and the likes of him felt that India was too poor and too divided to sustain itself as a democracy. For this reason, the historian is cautiously appreciative of the fact that the glass is half full.
The second reason a historian hails the success of Indian democracy is (because he sees) the world around India. You look at Bangladesh or Pakistan, or most other countries that were colonised -- Sudan and Nigeria included. They have comprehensively failed in establishing any kind of a democratic political regime.
The historian again enjoys the privilege of saying that the glass is half full and being cautiously appreciative, while respecting the citizens' legitimate impatience with the slowness of justice, the corrosion of the political system and all of that.
In that sense, I have not shirked from writing about the failures or suppressed anything negative. Yet, as a historian, I ought to say that even this 50 percent democracy was wholly unexpected, and is somewhat miraculous, considering how heavily the odds were stacked against India.
Image: Jawaharlal Nehru delivers his 'Tryst With Destiny' speech at midnight, August 14, 1947.
Also read: A 60-year partition of minds
Advertisement
