Friday, November 24, 2017



MR AND MRS  JINNAH


                                                       Inline image 1


“Mr and Mrs Jinnah: The Marriage that Shook India”;by Sheela
 Reddy ;Published by  Penguin/Viking ; Pages 411 ; Price Rs.699/-
                                   *********************************

We read recently that  Dina Wadia ,the daughter of M.A.Jinnah died in New York on November 2 She was the daughter and only child of  Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his wife Rattanbai Petit. She had married Neville Wadia. 

 This lends poignancy to the book under review of  the Love Affair of her parents and of the “Marriage that Shook India”. The author Sheela Reddy has written on  subjects as diverse as  politics, history, culture, literature and biographical sketches. She was the former Books Editor of  “Outlook”.

 Jinnah was forty years old, a successful barrister and a rising star in the nationalist movement when he fell in love with pretty, vivacious Ruttie Petit, the daughter of his good friend, the fabulously rich baronet, Sir Dinshaw Petit, a prominent Parsi mill owner. But Ruttie was only sixteen and Dinshaw refused to allow  the match. As Ruttie became  eighteen, they married and Bombay society  was thoroughly scandalised. All were on the side of  the Petits and Ruttie and Jinnah were treated as outcasts. No one believed that the marriage  would last.

 Jinnah  was totally  devoted to his beautiful, wayward child-bride as proud of her fashionable dressing as he was of her intelligence, her wide reading and her fierce commitment to the nationalist struggle. Ruttie, on her part, worshipped him and could tease and cajole the intimidating Jinnah. But as Jinnah was consumed by  politics Ruttie became left out and was severely  cut off from her family, friends and community. Jinnah’s frequent coldness and engagement  with politics    took its toll. Ruttie died at twenty-nine, leaving her daughter, Dina and her inconsolable husband, who did not think of another  marriage.


Reddy  refers to  pages of history  found in the labyrinths of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. Hundred pages of  letters written by Ruttie Jinnah to  Padmaja Naidu and her sister. The letters date back to when she was 15 and end abruptly a year before her death in 1929.

According to Reddy Jinnah is  “ a complex character, bundle of contradictions, but a man of great integrity, incorruptible, impervious to flattery, brutally honest and one who would not make any pretense, could not lie even to save his life or career.” She attributes the failure of their marriage, despite genuine love for each other, to “the politics of those times that created enormous pressure and the fact that they had diametrically different temperaments.”

 Reddy offers  vivid descriptions of early 20th century Bombay. The British Empire is firmly in place and Bombay is awash with Parsi enterprise and Parsi millionaires --- of whom Sir Dinshaw Petit is one.   In his luxurious home, Petit Hall, with its French furniture and Persian carpets, all is well. His children are brought up by English governesses, and his cosmopolitan lifestyle takes him and his family on vacations to Europe. At home, hospitality is never-ending. An army of servants serves lavish meals to an unending flow of visitors. Sarojini Naidu is a close friend and frequent guest.  Jinnah is a frequent visitor—a  successful barrister and member of the Viceroy's Imperial Legislative Council, a rising star in politics whom  Dinshaw greatly admires. He has been a familiar figure in Ruttie Petit's home since her childhood. She is still in her teens and Jinnah, aged 43, is just three years younger than her father when they marry in secret and she converts to Islam, creating a scandal that engulfs both their communities. This unlikely love story plays out against the social and political scene of the time. There are personality problems. Unable to cope, Ruttie runs away from her marriage and later comes back, but there is no repairing the mismatched relationship. Disowned by her father and her community, cut off from her family and all contact with her convivial home and carefree past, she turns to Sarojini Naidu for understanding and companionship and to Padmaja Naidu, her closest friend, for unfailing support. Ruttie tries to make a life for herself in a variety of ways-from unbridled shopping to theosophy and seances - but slides into a state of despair, into drug-induced illnesses and death at the age of 29.

"She was a child and I should never have married her," confessed Jinnah years later. "The fault was mine." Sarojini Naidu wrote an epitaph: "What a tragedy of unfulfilment Ruttie's life has been - she was so young and so lovely and she loved life with such passionate eagerness, and always life passed her by leaving her with empty hands and heart."

 "She yearned to break through the veils of his many self-repressions and discover for herself the real man  but the real J kept eluding her, hidden behind his cool and rational mind, never giving himself up to even a single display of deep emotion." Nothing could have been more disillusioning for the adoring 16-year-old whose beauty, sparkling vivacity and hero worship of him had captivated Jinnah. Ruttie had associated marriage to this handsome, distinguished man with high romance - that he would prove a passionate lover who would sweep her off her feet…. He comes across as a man set and fixed in his habits - reading several newspapers from beginning to end (including the advertisements) first thing in the morning and disliking interruptions of any kind. I found myself wishing he had occasionally put down a newspaper and spared a moment for a quick cuddle before going to work. It might have made all the difference to his marriage.

Ruttie adapted to her role as a leading politician's wife, but had an absorbing interest in the field herself and was proud of his eminence. She believed in his political mission of eventually freeing India from British rule and took part in the public events that claimed him-sitting on the platform with him and listening to hour-long political speeches with fortitude. But their personal life had no such glue to bind them. Ruttie was widely read, wrote poetry and had a poetic way with words. In an era of letter-writing, her exuberant and highly literate letters to her friends reveal her as a young woman of intellectual capacity and rare sensitivity.

Jinnah was an intensely private person and  never wrote his memoir, never kept a diary, and when he wrote a letter kept it dry and impersonal.According to Kanji Dwarkadas: ‘It was Jinnah’s bitterness, born out of his personal loss and disappointment, which travelled into his political life.’ 

Ruttie Petit  was left all alone. It was an emotional vacuum for her, as the book narrates, leading her from a fun-loving girl to a morphine addict, absorbed in depression. According to the author, one of the last messages that Ruttie sent to Jinnah read: "Try and remember me beloved as the flower you plucked and not the flower you tread on."

 Ruttie Petit was a bohemian and a liberated woman, who proposed to Jinnah (“It sounds like a good proposition,” Jinnah was claimed to have replied). She  left home armed with an umbrella and her little dog, her fiancĂ© forgot to bring a ring to the wedding ceremony, her father fainted when he read the wedding announcement in the paper—there is no shortage of drama to the story. For her valiant defence, Ruttie Petit was excommunicated by the  Parsi Panchayat and disowned and disinherited by her father.

A must-read for all those interested in politics and  history and the power of an unforgettable love story.

P.P.Ramachandran.
19/11/2017

Tit--Bits

Sir Dinshaw Petit, Ruttie's father  slapped a charge on Jinnah for kidnapping his daughter—he had filed an injunction to keep the barrister away from his daughter earlier—prompting his teenage daughter to stand up in court and tell the judge that “Mr. Jinnah has not abducted me: in fact I have abducted him”.

It is impossible not to adore a woman who refused to stand to greet the Viceroy during summer assembly sessions in Shimla. She refused to curtsy to another Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, instead greeting him with a namaste. TheViceroy snapped at Petit that if she didn’t want to “spoil” her husband’s political future, she should do as the Romans do in Rome. “That’s exactly what I did,” Petit replied. “In India I greeted you in the Indian way.” She was not invited back to meet Lord Chelmsford a second time.


PPR 19/ 11 / 2017

Tuesday, November 14, 2017


DR.M S SWAMINATHAN



                                             Inline image 1

 M S Swaminathan  in conversation with Nitya Rao ; Published by Academic Foundation; Pages 227 ; Price Rs.895/-

                                      *********************************

Ms. Nitya Rao—the Editor of the book under review-- is the youngest daughter of  M S Swaminathan. She is  Professor, Gender and Development, at the School of International Development, University of East Anglia and  has close to 30 years experience as a field-level practitioner, trainer, researcher and teacher. She has  been researching issues of migration, intra-household resource allocations, nutrition, adaptation to climate risks and unpacking the processes of feminist mobilization..She is the author of the book  "Good Women Do Not Inherit Land: Politics of Land and Gender in India".

M  S Swaminathan (born on 7 August 1925) is an Indian geneticist  and international administrator, famous  for his significant  role in India's  “Green Revolution” --a program under which high-yield varieties of wheat and rice seedlings were planted in the fields of poor farmers. He is rightly  known as "Indian Father of Green Revolution". He is the founder and chairman of the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation. His declared aim is to rid the world of hunger and poverty. He is an advocate of leading  India to sustainable development, especially depending on environmentally sustainable agriculture, sustainable food security and the preservation of biodiversity, which he calls an "Evergreen revolution”.

 He was Director General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Principal Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and  Director General of the International Rice Research Institute. He became President of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

On the occasion of the presentation of the First “World Food Prize” to Swaminathan, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Secretary General of the United Nations, wrote: "Dr. Swaminathan is a living legend. His contributions to Agricultural Science have made an indelible mark on food production in India and elsewhere in the developing world. By any standards, he will go into the annals of history as a world scientist of rare distinction." He  has been described by the United Nations Environment Programme as "the Father of Economic Ecology." .

Almost every country in the world has given him its highest honours. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of London and subsequently by the United States, Russian, Chinese and Italian Academy of Sciences. He has annexed scores of awards. He is the first recipient of the World Food Prize—US $ 200,000 with which he established the M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai. All amounts received as Prizes have been donated by him for Charities and for Research. While he has got all the three Padma Awards the Bharat Ratna has eluded him. Gopalakrishna Gandhi wrote ,”Often a Prophet is not recognized in his own country.”He was one of three from India included in  Time  magazine's 1999 list of the "20 most influential Asian people of the 20th century," the other two being Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore.

  The book under review is in two parts, not exactly sequential. The first part with 12 chapters is the  life story  of  Swaminathan, and his ambition in ensuring  human dignity through food sovereignty. We have an inkling to Swaminathan’s variegated experiences. The second part with 7 chapters deals with  implications of that story. He reflects on how politics has influenced and shaped the course of agricultural development; and how different ethical stances, often in conflict, have come into play.

  Nitya Rao writes lovingly of her parents—this is worth quoting in full--“ Despite their divergent interests and trajectories, there has always been a strong sense of partnership and mutual support, of shared values and philosophies, emerging from a desire to serve the country, especially the disadvantaged. Their lives have been truly complementary. In our home, Amma was discipline incarnate, but also full of creativity, play and adventure, while Appa’s worst scolding took the form of telling us that we wouldn’t be given chocolates if we were naughty! Despite his busy schedule, in our childhood, he always made time for our Sunday ‘oil-baths’ and ‘made-up, bed-time’ stories, as well as the full-day picnics organised by Amma. His gentle personality and trusting nature extended beyond the home; when troubled by conflict and wrongdoing, he found it difficult to handle directly. Yet we three sisters were never directed on what we should do, but given every freedom to grow and pursue our own interests, which we have done, each in our own way. They encouraged my interest in rural development... my career has moved in a direction that combines their diverse interests: gender relations and rural development. I really wanted to know what drove them, relentlessly, for the last 25 years, despite adversities and problems.

My seeking answers to these questions led to the idea of this book. This short book therefore focuses primarily on the ideas and efforts of M S Swaminathan, bringing together insights on the human values and ethical principles that have been essential for realising his dream - that of securing human dignity through food sovereignty and security in India. The book documents how personal and professional lessons were learned and imbibed through life’s diverse experiences…the combination of intellectual capacity with social commitment and non-negotiable moral standards is a mark of leadership par excellence, rarely matched in the country in recent decades."

In his work, his wife, Mina Swaminathan, has been a firm partner and collaborator at every stage. This book highlights the underlying philosophy of M S. The ability to identify a problem, analyse its causes and find solutions, through critical and creative thinking, has been a hallmark of Swaminathan’s life. One of his favourite terms ‘malady-remedy’ analysis, draws its roots from medicine and his father, from whom he learned this lesson early in life.

Written In the form of short anecdotes and stories, drawn from different periods of his life, the book  demonstrates the clarity of goals, vision and purpose, the continuity and strength of his convictions. The book highlights his immense respect for people of all social groups and a recognition that no one is too small to contribute to the collective production of knowledge.

 This is an unusual  book that goes  beyond Swaminathan’s spectacular contributions to agricultural research, including, for example, the development of public policy to recognize the contributions of tribal and rural communities to conservation of agro-biodiversity. Swaminathan’s life has been accurately summed by Nitya Rao—“Swaminathan is indifferent to praise or criticism, he has a definite purpose, a clear direction, a strong ethical stance in favour of equity and justice, as a voice for farmers, men and women, often unseen and unheard. This seems to be the essential philosophy of his life and work”.

P.P.Ramachandran.
12/ 11/ 2017.
****************************************************************************************

Tit-Bits

In his last speech in Rajya Sabha ,Swaminathan quoted a memorable incident, worth  recalling.
“As a biologist, I wish to cite an outstanding example of democracy at the household level. Charles Darwin is well-known for his path-breaking work in elucidating the origin of the species, including ourselves, through evolution. Darwin’s wife, was a staunch Catholic and the theory of evolution was considered blasphemy by Catholics and several other religious groups of that time, She was once asked how she managed to live peacefully with Charles, considering that his theory of evolution was unacceptable to her, She replied that Charles lives by reason and she by faith. What leads to faith is feeling and not reasoning ; so they agreed to disagree and lived happily together.”
PPR.
12 / 11 / 2017

Wednesday, November 8, 2017


PRANABDA

                                                   Inline image 3


Coalition Years by Pranab Mukherjee ; Published by Rupa ; Pages 312  ; Price Rs.595/-
                         *****************************
The book under review is the  third volume of the memoirs of  ex-President Pranab  Mukherjee. The earlier books were “The Indira Years” and “The Turbulent Years”. A fourth book on the "Presidential Years" is under preparation.

The memoirs conceal more than they reveal. The first two volumes were published while he was still in Rashtrapati Bhawan. The norms or maryada of that high ceremonial office was justification enough to either avoid some sensitive issues. In this third volume, this excuse wasn’t available.


 This volume   is a sharp and candid account of his years at the helm. It offers the most authoritative account of contemporary Indian politics by one of the tallest leaders and statesmen of our generation. There are no revelations here. Quite occasionally Pranabda parts the curtains to reveal  behind-the-scenes activities about  a very dramatic period in contemporary Indian political history. There is no analysis of the role of the Gandhis, especially Rahul Gandhi. He takes the reader through the Congress journey from being a coalition of “various ideas, personalities and groups of interests” to heading a coalition of parties. What  went wrong inside is not divulged.

The book begins its journey in 1996 and explores the highs and lows that characterized sixteen years of a tumultuous period in India’s political history. Seen through the eyes of a prime architect of the post-Congress era of Indian politics it is a simple account of the coalition politics.

The rout of  the Congress in the 1996 general elections and the rise of regional parties like the TDP and the TMC and  the compelling factors that forced  Congress to withdraw support to the I.K. Gujral government and the singular ability of Sonia Gandhi to forge an alliance with diverse political parties that enabled the Congress to lead the coalitions of UPA I and II are covered clinically.

The book  is also a recollection of Mukherjee’s journey as the Cabinet Minister in the key ministries of defence, external affairs and finance, beginning from 2004.  Each of the event is recounted with patent simplicity—and these include —the path-breaking meeting with Henry Kissinger in 2004 that altered the course of the Indo–US strategic partnership, Mukherjee’s  timely advice to Bangladesh Army Chief Moeen Ahmed in 2008 that led to the release of political prisoners there and the differing views with RBI Governor D. Subbarao on the structure of the FSDC. He makes no secret of the fact that his disagreements with  Subbarao, who “had been thrust upon me”, were sharp and charges him with having an exaggerated view of his autonomy. All the new initiatives he started or pursued (FSDC, FSLRC, DTC, government debt management office) remained incomplete. He avoids talking about key events in this period. The most important is the scams and the funny goings-on between his office and the Prime Minister’s over the 2G scam.

Releasing the book  Manmohan Singh declared that   Pranab Mukherjee had “every reason to feel a grievance that he was better qualified” than  him for the post of Prime Minister. Singh described Mukherjee as one of the greatest living politicians and Congressmen who the party turned to whenever there was a crisis to be resolved. 

Mukherjee  disfavoured the Congress’s 2003 decision to forge alliances to defeat the BJP in the 2004 general elections. He said his view remains unchanged even today. Mukherjee advocated the go-alone strategy, saying that is the only way the Congress can keep its identity intact. Referring to the Congress’s decision at Shimla conclave in 2003 to enter into a coalition, Mukherjee said, “The issue of being open to forming a coalition was certainly a change of tack from the Panchmarhi conclave where we had agreed that coalitions will be considered where absolutely necessary.” Mukherjee writes ,” I was the lone voice stating a contrarian view as I believed that sharing a platform or power with other parties would undermine our identity.”

Pranab  writes,  “I maintained that the party should not forsake that identity for the sake of forming a government; there was no harm in sitting in the opposition should that happen. I remain consistent with that view even today. I always believed Congress is a coalition which brings together various ideas, personalities and groups of interests. To provide leadership to a coalition is difficult as the Congress has to then manage one coalition within and one outside,”

Pranab gives  an account of selection for the country's top constitutional post ."The bone of contention about my nomination remained the same as that in 2007. Sonia Gandhi told me frankly, 'Pranabji you are the most eminently suited for the office, but you should not forget the crucial role you are playing in the functioning of the government. Could you suggest an alternative?"

"… I returned with a vague impression that she might wish to consider Manmohan Singh as the UPA presidential nominee. I thought that if she selected Singh for the presidential office, she may choose me as the prime minister. I had heard a rumour that she had given this formulation serious thought ,"

Disclosing dramatic events ahead of his name being cleared for the top post, Mukherjee documents that TMC chief Mamata Banerjee met Gandhi on June 13, 2012, and later Gandhi told him that the TMC chief had suggested two probables -- Mukherjee himself and Ansari. "Mamata Banerjee also mentioned her meeting with Sonia Gandhi and insisted that Sonia Gandhi had suggested two names -- Hamid Ansari and Pranab Mukherjee -- both of which were unacceptable to them. Manmohan Singh informed Mukherjee of a joint decision to nominate him as the presidential election nominee of the UPA.

Mukherjee also narrated the incident when Gandhi was to appoint a Prime Minister after she declined to take up the position in 2004.
"There was intense speculation in the party and the media about her choice. Within the Congress party the consensus was that the incumbent must be a political leader with experience in party affairs and administration. Finally she named Dr Manmohan Singh as her choice and he accepted.

"The prevalent expectation was that I would be the next choice for Prime Minister after Sonia Gandhi declined. This expectation was possibly based on the fact that I had extensive experience in government, while Singh's vast experience was as a civil servant with five years as a reformist finance minister," 

Mukherjee, in his introductory chapter, warns against disturbing trends in today’s politics, such as the declining time in Parliament devoted to debate, and legislation passed without proper discussion.  Mukherjee is concerned about the tendency to pass ordinances ignoring the Parliament. He points out there have been 28 ordinances in the three years of the current Lok Sabha.  He writes that, on several occasions, his observations on ordinances were communicated to the concerned minister or the Prime Minister. But he ensured that such differences did not come under the media glare.

Coming to pure politics, Mukherjee also gives a peek into the CWC meeting where Sonia was attacked on her foreign origin issue by the trio of P.A.Sangma, Sharad Pawar and Tariq Anwar, leading to the last major split in the party. Sangma had bluntly told Sonia, much to her shock: “We know very little about you, about your parents….” Mukherjee quotes.

Admitting his tendency to flare-up — for which Sonia Gandhi once told him “this is why I think you can’t be the President”  — Mukherjee writes: “Nothing exemplifies my temper more than the episode that involved the arrest of Jayendra Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of Kanchi, on 12 November 2004. It was the time when the entire country was celebrating Diwali. During the Cabinet meeting, I was extremely critical of the timing of the arrest and questioned if the basic tenets of secularism of the Indian state machinery dare to arrest a Muslim cleric during Eid festivities? M K Narayanan, then Special Advisor to Prime Minister, also agreed with me. I immediately issued instructions for the Shankaracharya to be released on bail.”

The book — despite all it does not reveal — is very useful, for the sweep of events it covers as well as the glimpses it provides of the inner workings of government at a critical time in the country’s history.

P.P.Ramachandran.
5/ 11/ 2017