Someone please do tell me…
Besides the mediocrity of the article… what exactly was offensive about the article?

Every major city in India is partitioned, mixed neighbourhoods are largely a thing of the past. Every riot is like a mini-partition, separating people further into radically different spheres of habitation and commerce. This has very important consequences, particularly on the Muslim sections of the city, which especially in north India, have become little more than ghettos.

Its stupid to expect the secular elite to care about these things, they’d rather pat themselves on the back or wonder why we cant all get along.

Then again, this type of “i love them, i hate them, omg will they discover my hinduness and behead me in front of badshahi masjid, oh no they wont because im secular” schizophrenia must have something to do with partition. Though i prefer my landlord’s version: raised in pre-partition amritsar, though not panjabi, on my first day in the flat told me i have a ‘muhammadan beard’(i dont), that my ‘muhammadan girlfriend’ must be very attractive and then went on some rant about how Lahore was a beautiful city when the hindus owned it, but now it must be very dirty. then told me some charming 1947 Earth type story about Ali bhai, his college best friend who fled during partition and whose stuff he safeguarded, who i must find when i go to lahore. This is at least a reflection of a man who experienced these events, whose life and relationships were torn apart by partition, in whatever way.

Guha’s however, is the reason why those fighting against hindu nationalism are termed “pseudo secular.”

I just got his India after Gandhi book as well, and though he used to go on and on about how Indian history needs to tackle more recent issues and not be so obsessed with the colonial era, a good chunk of the book actually deals with the immediate aftermath of independence. Thus far I find it well researched and written smoothly enough (though he’s not a talented, lyrical writer), but what really disappoints me is that he seems to have a fairly conventional nationalist angle on history and historiography (though mercifully doesn’t get on the whole Mahatma-worship track). I expected more of him.

Oh, you too? I quite liked, although I think he focuses too much on Nehru (but he was also working on a Nehru biography at the same time, if I’m not wrong). Actually, I’m sort of tired of reading about the lives of the “fathers of the nation,” which brings me to the next point:

“I just got the new Guha book (”India After Gandhi”); haven’t read it yet, but was wondering if anyone here has? Thoughts?”

Nope, but if Gandhi’s discussed generously in there, then I probably won’t read it. I’ve been Gandhi’ed out all my life, and I stopped after I read his autobiography, which was in 2004.

Do tell us if Guha’s book discusses Gandhi at length.

Hey, has anybody read Eqbal Ahmed’s selected writings book? I’ve been wanting to read it, but I haven’t gotten around to it.

Actually, I think they publish even worse on gender relations routinely, and not as an “op-ed” but as news pieces.

btw, I just got the new Guha book (”India After Gandhi”); haven’t read it yet, but was wondering if anyone here has? Thoughts? It seems like a larger(more ambitious?) book than the usual one-volumer on India. [For me the benchmark for this sort os book remains Sunil Khilnani's The Idea of India]…

Seriously. He takes examples of 4 Punjabis from Pakistan- out of the MILLIONS of Punjabis in Delhi- as an example of dishonesty.

Re: “Guha’s piece seemed to be more appropriate for a blog post rather than a national newspaper,”,= I had in mind the dream part when I wrote that. I don’t usually expect reading about dreams in the NYT…but then again, the NYT has a habit of publishing things that boggle me (ie a piece by a British commander on the British colonial empire and India; giving Henry Kissinger too much exposure. But again, I guess we should be thankful that we at least get to hear wtf these people are thinking).

“Yet they remained insecure; who knew when catastrophe might come again? And so they hoarded diamonds and maintained Swiss bank accounts.

They also cheated their tenants. In six years in Delhi, my wife and I had four landlords, all refugees from the Pakistani part of Punjab. All four hooked their appliances to our electricity meter, and all kept our deposits when we left.”

HEY NOW! I can think of a lot of blog posts that are more thoughtful, more complete, than this op-ed :-)

Ralph Luker: having read other works by Guha, I do think he is “anti-partition”; however, your comment seems to assume that the only reason for being anti-partition is because of an exaltation of “Greater India”/”Akhand Bharat”. I resist that implicit assumption: my own reading of Guha’s views is that he views “the idea of India” — i.e. the Nehruvian idea of India — as an inherently less problematic idea on which to found a polity than “the idea of Pakistan.” That is, recognizing that all nationalisms are problematic, I read his claim being that not all are EQUALLY problematic, and thus one need not accept the “given-ness” of “Greater India” to be opposed to the “idea of Pakistan.”

Back to work.

“That is, the line of demarcation that created Pakistan is assumed to be a division of India. Pakistan’s existence is, somehow, an illegitimate compromise. It is remarkable that he acknowledges the discrimination against Muslims within India and, yet, believes that Pakistan is legitimately only a part of the larger India.”

Where on earth do you see this what you have stated above? Guha said:

“Despite their shared culture, cuisine and love for the game of cricket, India and Pakistan have already fought four wars. And judging by the number of troops on their borders and the missiles and nuclear weapons to back them, they seem prepared to fight a fifth.”

India and Pakistan DO have some shared cultures, and to point that out is NOT “de-legitimizing” Pakistan’s existence and claiming that Pakistan is part of a greater India. There are Punjabis on both sides of the border, Sindhis on both sides, Gujaratis on both sides, etc who share the same language, food, and so on. If we were to follow your logic, then that means there are Pakistanis themselves who do not see Pakistan’s existence as “legitimate” and a part of greater India, such as Asma Jahangir from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan when she says:

“Pakistan and India share a common culture and have been separated by politicians for their own private ends for too long.”

http://www.hrcp-web.org/indopak_People.cfm

Guha pointing this out and then taking note of the fact that Pakistan and India have fought wars, are nuclear states, and will probably fight more wars in the future is not incorrect or imprecise.