Introduction: “Indian Democracy: Long Dead, Now Buried” by Ranajit Guha
“Indian Democracy: Long Dead, Now Buried” by Ranajit Guha, first appeared in the esteemed journal Journal of Contemporary Asia in 1976. This provocative piece, a scathing critique of India’s nascent democracy, has since become a cornerstone of postcolonial studies and subaltern historiography. Guha’s essay challenges the prevailing Western narratives of Indian democracy as a progressive and successful experiment, arguing instead that it was fundamentally flawed from its inception. His incisive analysis, rooted in a deep understanding of Indian history and society, has had a profound impact on literary theory, inspiring scholars to examine the ways in which power structures and colonial legacies continue to shape contemporary narratives and experiences.
Summary of “Indian Democracy: Long Dead, Now Buried” by Ranajit Guha
Critique of Liberal Responses to Emergency
- Guha begins by critiquing the liberal reaction to the 1975 Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi, mocking the disillusionment of liberal scholars and politicians who had believed Indian democracy to be a robust system. He highlights the failure of these liberals to recognize that the collapse was not due to a single personality (Indira Gandhi) but the structural flaws inherent in Indian democracy since its inception.
“Poor Professor, his entire life’s work on Indian democracy based on the assumption that the ruling classes of the country are the best defenders of its constitution…”
Indian Democracy’s Flawed Foundation
- Guha argues that Indian democracy was never truly democratic, even at its inception. He contends that the Indian state, post-independence, was designed to serve the interests of big landlords and business elites, perpetuating a colonial legacy rather than dismantling it.
“The republic was set up as a decolonized but undemocratic state… by a ‘transfer of power’ from the British to the Indian elite representing big landlord and big business interests.”
Telengana Struggle as Evidence of Anti-Democracy
- The article provides an account of the Telengana peasant struggle (1946-1951) as an example of the ruling class’s suppression of democratic movements. Guha illustrates how the new Indian government, led by Nehru, brutally crushed peasant uprisings, revealing the state’s undemocratic tendencies.
“The outcome of this ‘police action’ was the rewarding of the Nizam with a vast pecuniary compensation… and landlords and moneylenders flocked back to the villages.”
The Use of Preventive Detention
- Guha traces the long history of preventive detention in India, arguing that the practice, far from being a product of Indira Gandhi’s rule, has roots in Nehru’s administration and reflects the fundamentally authoritarian nature of the Indian state.
“Imprisonment without trial, limited so far to a few states, was thus generalized for all of India… Preventive detention has always been in force as a standing denial of the citizens’ rights and liberties.”
Growth of the Police State
- Guha details how the Indian state expanded its police force and surveillance apparatus, emphasizing the use of violence to suppress dissent. He discusses the use of both visible police forces and secret police to stifle revolutionary movements like the Naxalite uprising.
“The ruling Congress Party patronizes the police and uses it as a partisan instrument to suppress and harass the parties in opposition.”
Judiciary’s Role in Sustaining Authoritarianism
- Guha critiques the Indian judiciary for being complicit in upholding the interests of the ruling class. He cites cases like the Keezh Venmani massacre, where landlords were acquitted despite clear evidence of their crimes against laborers, to demonstrate the judiciary’s bias toward the elite.
“The Supreme Court’s collusion with the ruling classes also makes it useless as the defender of civil liberties.”
Emergency as Final Nail in Indian Democracy’s Coffin
- The Emergency of 1975, according to Guha, represents the culmination of decades of undemocratic practices, institutionalized under Nehru and further aggravated by Indira Gandhi. Guha asserts that the Emergency was not a break from the past but rather the logical conclusion of a long history of authoritarian governance.
“The Emergency declared on 26 June 1975 represents a qualitative change in her assault on Indian democracy only in the sense that scavenging is different from killing.”
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Indian Democracy: Long Dead, Now Buried” by Ranajit Guha
| Term/Concept | Definition | Example from Text |
| Irony | A literary device in which the meaning is contrary to what is expressed | “India as the world’s largest democracy” |
| Rhetoric | The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing | “empty rhetoric” of liberalism |
| Historical Myth | A widely accepted belief about the past that is often false or exaggerated | “India was a democracy until the Emergency” |
| Euphemism | A mild or indirect expression used in place of a harsh or blunt one | “preventive detention” |
| Juxtaposition | The placing of contrasting ideas, images, or characters side by side for a striking effect | “brutality of the state… democratic ideals” |
Contribution of “Indian Democracy: Long Dead, Now Buried” by Ranajit Guha to Literary Theory/Theories
| Theory | Contribution | Example from Text |
| Postcolonial Studies | Challenges dominant Western narratives of Indian democracy | “The republic was set up as a decolonized but undemocratic state.” |
| Postcolonial Studies | Critiques the hypocrisy of liberalism in India | “The truth is that for nearly all the twenty-eight years of its post colonial existence (excluding a few months in 1947 and 1969-70) the Indian state has forced its citizens to live in fear of imprisonment without trial, known euphemistically as ‘preventive detention.'” |
| Subaltern Historiography | Focuses on the experiences of marginalized groups | “The armed struggle of the peasantry in Telengana… was a battle for democracy.” |
| Subaltern Historiography | Challenges elite-centric narratives of Indian history | “The present Emergency is not the work of an individual suddenly gone made. It is the realization by the ruling classes, acting through the Government of the day, of the full potential of the violence of a state which they had themselves conceived of and set up as hostile to democracy.” |
Examples of Critiques Through “Indian Democracy: Long Dead, Now Buried” by Ranajit Guha
| Literary Work & Author | Critique through Guha’s Lens | Relevant Theme from Guha |
| Train to Pakistan by Khushwant Singh | Singh’s portrayal of the brutality during Partition resonates with Guha’s critique of the post-colonial state’s reliance on violence to suppress dissent. The violence and betrayal experienced by common people in the novel reflect the state’s role in perpetuating division and suppression, akin to Guha’s analysis of the Indian state’s undemocratic foundation. | “The state, from its inception, had to conduct itself in a singularly undemocratic manner… using violence to suppress forces of rural democracy.” |
| The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy | Roy critiques the caste system and social injustice in Kerala, which parallels Guha’s argument about how Indian democracy protects elite interests while marginalizing the oppressed. Roy’s depiction of caste-based oppression reflects Guha’s observation that Indian democracy never addressed systemic inequities and perpetuated a semi-feudal social structure. | “A variety of pre-capitalist constraints such as landlord authority, caste authority… curbed the electorate’s freedom of choice.” |
| Kanthapura by Raja Rao | Rao’s novel, which reflects on Gandhian nationalism, can be viewed through Guha’s critique as exposing the failure of nationalist movements to truly democratize India. The idealism of the Gandhian movement in Kanthapura is contrasted with the systemic failure to address underlying inequities, aligning with Guha’s argument that the postcolonial state was built to serve elite interests rather than achieving true democracy. | “The republic was set up as a decolonized but undemocratic state… representing big landlord and big business interests.” |
| Waiting for the Mahatma by R.K. Narayan | Narayan’s portrayal of Gandhi’s followers struggling to reconcile their personal desires with the broader nationalist movement resonates with Guha’s critique of the myth of Indian democracy. The novel highlights the disillusionment with the promises of freedom, similar to how Guha critiques the facade of Indian democracy as a system that failed to deliver social justice. | “The Emergency represents no radical break with a democratic past but an aggravation of a chronic denial of elementary freedoms and justice.” |
Criticism Against “Indian Democracy: Long Dead, Now Buried” by Ranajit Guha
- Deterministic View of History: Critics argue that Guha’s analysis presents a deterministic view of history, suggesting that the Indian state was inevitably doomed to be undemocratic. This view neglects the agency of individuals and social movements within the Indian context.
- Overemphasis on Colonial Legacy: Some critics contend that Guha overemphasizes the colonial legacy in explaining the undemocratic nature of the Indian state. They argue that internal factors, such as caste, class, and regional tensions, also played significant roles.
- Neglect of Positive Developments: Critics point out that Guha’s analysis focuses primarily on the negative aspects of Indian democracy, neglecting the positive developments that have occurred over time.
- Oversimplification of Complex Issues: Some critics argue that Guha oversimplifies complex issues, such as the relationship between the state and civil society, and the role of political parties in Indian democracy.
- Lack of Empirical Evidence: Critics contend that Guha’s analysis lacks sufficient empirical evidence to support his claims. They argue that his arguments are often based on anecdotal evidence and generalizations.
- Bias Against the Congress Party: Critics suggest that Guha’s analysis is biased against the Congress Party and its leaders. They argue that he fails to recognize the positive contributions of the Congress Party to Indian democracy.
- Neglect of the Role of Social Movements: Critics argue that Guha neglects the role of social movements in shaping Indian democracy. They contend that social movements have played a crucial role in challenging the state and promoting democratic values.
- Outdated Analysis: Some critics argue that Guha’s analysis is outdated, as it does not account for the significant changes that have occurred in Indian democracy since the 1970s.
Suggested Readings: “Indian Democracy: Long Dead, Now Buried” by Ranajit Guha
Books:
- Guha, Ranajit. Subaltern Studies: Writings on South Asian History and Society. Oxford University Press, 1997.
- Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Oxford University Press, 1994.
Academic Articles:
- Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Histories and the Question of Modernity.” Critical Inquiry 30.2 (2003): 238-267.
- Dasgupta, Biplab. “Ranajit Guha and Subaltern Studies: A Critique.” Economic and Political Weekly 39.38 (2004): 4011-4017. https://www.epw.in/tags/subaltern-studies
- Sen, Amartya. “The Idea of Justice.” Harvard University Press, 2009. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674060470
Websites:
- Subaltern Studies Collective: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/subaltern-studies-9780195651256?sortField=4&resultsPerPage=100&view=Standard&lang=en&cc=gb
- Indian History and Culture: https://www.iexplore.com/articles/travel-guides/south-and-southeast-asia/india/history-and-culture
Representative Quotations from “Indian Democracy: Long Dead, Now Buried” by Ranajit Guha with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “The republic was set up as a decolonized but undemocratic state.” | Guha critiques the formation of the Indian republic, arguing that while India gained independence, it did not become a true democracy, as power remained with the elites. |
| “The transfer of power… was a pre-emptive strike against what could have exploded as a full-scale liberation war.” | Guha emphasizes that decolonization was orchestrated by elites to prevent a popular uprising, reflecting how true democracy was avoided in favor of elite control. |
| “The Indian state, from its inception, had to conduct itself in a singularly undemocratic manner.” | Guha argues that the Indian state has consistently suppressed democratic movements, especially in rural areas, to maintain the power of landlords and the ruling elite. |
| “Indira Gandhi’s rule is presented as an aberration… to promote the illusion that another leader might set the ship of state onto her course again.” | Guha critiques the tendency to blame individuals like Indira Gandhi for India’s democratic failures, instead pointing to systemic problems rooted in the state itself. |
| “The present Emergency is merely a climactic act in a process going back to the very circumstances of the birth of the Indian republic.” | The Emergency of 1975 is seen by Guha as a natural continuation of the undemocratic nature of the Indian state, rather than a sudden departure from democratic norms. |
| “Parliament has always been a principal bastion of the police state that is India.” | Guha critiques the role of the Indian parliament, arguing that it has been complicit in sustaining authoritarianism and upholding the interests of the ruling class. |
| “The Indian ruling classes… have suppressed the forces of rural democracy and protected feudal elements most hostile to the development of democracy.” | This quote highlights Guha’s assertion that the ruling classes actively undermined democratic movements, particularly those that sought to challenge feudal structures. |
| “Preventive detention has always been in force as a standing denial of the citizens’ rights and liberties.” | Guha argues that the practice of preventive detention, which began under Nehru and was continued by Indira Gandhi, exemplifies the undemocratic nature of the Indian state. |
| “The suppression of Indian democracy is not the work of an individual suddenly gone mad.” | Guha rejects the idea that India’s democratic failures can be blamed on individual leaders like Indira Gandhi, instead attributing them to the structural problems of the state. |
| “Democracy in India has long been dead, if it was ever alive at all.” | This is the crux of Guha’s argument: Indian democracy never truly existed, as the system was designed to serve the interests of elites from the beginning. |