Bhupinder 136 CHAPTER FOUR A Look at the Scars: Naipaul‘s India: A Wounded Civilization The purpose of the present chapter is to explore how Naipaul depicts the politics of the rulers and their impact on the nation and its citizens. Naipaul gives a brief description of ancient India even as the text focuses on the political dynamics involving the political leaders, parties, the financially strong men and the masses. The parties and its leaders use community, religion, region and language as tools to attain or to continue to remain in power. In Naipaul‘s opinion, the Gandhian philosophy is of little relevance in the new India. The financially powerful however, are the real masters as they exercise control over the political system. Naipaul in his travelogues writes about his experiences gained during his visits to India, the country of his forefathers. He critically examines the socio-political, economic and cultural conditions in postcolonial India. The idealism and zeal of freedom movement has given way to the emergence of a different kind of politics, a system favoring the few even as the vast masses remain reeling under poverty. The leaders talk about the welfare of masses. They promise to put an end to unemployment, poverty and corruption but make little effort to give practical shape to their words. The present chapter focuses on his India: A Wounded Civilization (1977), perhaps among the most insightful commentaries on the 1975 political happenings in India. Naipaul skillfully records the political and social impact of the declaration of Emergency by the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The book is based on his personal observations and interactions with various people during his visits to India in 1975 and 1976. Naipaul is critical of authoritarian policies of the rulers of independent India. Indira Gandhi‘s declaration of Emergency was the dark period after independence when the Indians got deprived of their constitutional rights.
Transcript
Bhupinder 136
CHAPTER FOUR
A Look at the Scars: Naipaul‘s India: A Wounded Civilization
The purpose of the present chapter is to explore how Naipaul depicts the politics of the rulers
and their impact on the nation and its citizens. Naipaul gives a brief description of ancient
India even as the text focuses on the political dynamics involving the political leaders,
parties, the financially strong men and the masses. The parties and its leaders use community,
religion, region and language as tools to attain or to continue to remain in power. In
Naipaul‘s opinion, the Gandhian philosophy is of little relevance in the new India. The
financially powerful however, are the real masters as they exercise control over the political
system. Naipaul in his travelogues writes about his experiences gained during his visits to
India, the country of his forefathers. He critically examines the socio-political, economic and
cultural conditions in postcolonial India. The idealism and zeal of freedom movement has
given way to the emergence of a different kind of politics, a system favoring the few even as
the vast masses remain reeling under poverty. The leaders talk about the welfare of masses.
They promise to put an end to unemployment, poverty and corruption but make little effort to
give practical shape to their words. The present chapter focuses on his India: A Wounded
Civilization (1977), perhaps among the most insightful commentaries on the 1975 political
happenings in India. Naipaul skillfully records the political and social impact of the
declaration of Emergency by the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The book is based
on his personal observations and interactions with various people during his visits to India in
1975 and 1976. Naipaul is critical of authoritarian policies of the rulers of independent India.
Indira Gandhi‘s declaration of Emergency was the dark period after independence when the
Indians got deprived of their constitutional rights.
Bhupinder 137
Born in 1932 in Trinidad in a Brahmin family of Indian origin, Sir Vidiyadhar
Surajprasad, better known as V.S Naipaul, is one of the eminent diasporic writers. His
grandfather had migrated as an indentured labourer in 1880 along with the other people from
his village. As such Naipaul grew up in an environment with people having the touch of their
native culture and traditions. His visits to India that his travelogues depict, demonstrate his
keen interest in the country of his forefathers. He got his education from Queen‘s Royal
College (Port of Spain) from where he passed his secondary school examination. He
graduated from the Oxford University. He got married twice; in 1955 to Patricia Ann
Halewho he met at Oxford, she died in 1996 and then to Nadira Khannum Alvi, a divorced
journalist from Pakistan. His father Seeparsad Naipaul, a journalist by profession, was
Naipaul‘s main inspiration to writing. Naipaul started his career as a journalist by working
for the BBC. Then, he started writing stories about his memories of Trinidad. He wrote his
first novel at the age of eighteen though it could not be published. Since then he has written
fifteennovels including A House for Mr. Biswas (1961), Mr. Stone and the Knights
Companion (1963), The Mimic Man (1967), In A Free State (1971), Guerillas (1975), A
Bend in the River (1979), The Loss of El Dorado (1969) and The Engima of Arrival (1987),
etc. He is also celebrated for his non- fictional works which include: The Middle Passage
(1962), An Area of Darkness(1964), India: A Wounded Civilization (1977), A Congo Diary
(1980), A Turn in the South (1989), India: A Million Mutinies Now (1990), etc.
Naipaul in his fiction and non-fiction deals with the effects of colonialism and
migration on the indigenous people. His writings depict the experience of dislocation and
displacement both in the physical and the psychological sense. He has bluntly written about
political corruption, oppression and revolution. His significant writings center on the themes
of alienation, migration, displacement, search for identity, freedom and power. His
travelogues portray the harsh realities about the political and social structures of various
Bhupinder 138
societies. In his books India: A Wounded Civilization (1977) and India: A Million Mutinies
Now (1977), he focuses on how the politics of the rulers in post-independence India aim at
continuation of the policies of the British. The men in power hardly attempt to bring about
any transformation in the system. The divisive politics of the leaders has, instead of
promoting unity, intensified fragmentation of society.
Naipaul in India: A Wounded Civilization talks about the futility of violence, in
particular that of the Naxalite movement. The text depicts how the masses, who suffered
during the colonial rule, continue to suffer in the post-independence era. Naipaul rightly
terms the nation and its civilization as ‗wounded‘ as the nation has been wounded by the
foreign invasions in the past. In the present also, the wounds of the colonial rule continue to
haunt. Naipaul is of the view that the Indians lack the intellect and reasoning so as to produce
something new for the nation and its society. He believes that the people are still obsessed
with the old traditional values and as such have become dogmatic in their approach. Though
Naipaul pictures the dark side of India, yet he is hopeful that in spite of the flaws in the
political and social system, the country of his forefathers is sure to march on the path of
progress in future.
Naipaul has received acclaim for displaying the power of imagination and
organization in his works. He makes use of extensive humor, irony, and satire. The blending
of realism with fantasy makes him a writer par excellence. His An Area of Darkness (1964),
India A Wounded Civilization (1977),and India A MillionMutinies Now (1990) constitute
trilogy in which he writes about his experiences gained during his visits to India. His
observations in India: A Million Mutinies Now are based on whatever he heard or observed.
He critically examines the socio-political, economic and cultural conditions in postcolonial
India. Naipaul‘s travelogues depict, more or less, a picture of India as she seems to him; a
Bhupinder 139
land symbolizing history as well as fiction. The book is in keeping with the tradition as
Malikarjun Patil aptly observes:
Travelogue is a work of art like any form of literature. It is
a genre of historical-realistical fictional work… travelogue
is certainly more than a graphic record of the places and
personal impressions of the sojourner. (Patil, 146)
Since the work contains Naipaul‘s personal conclusions, the critics have interpreted
Naipaul‘s works from a variety of angles. He has been considered as a diasporic novelist as
well as a postcolonial or postmodernist author. Rob Nixon, for instance, appreciates
Naipaul‘s expertise on the issue of cross cultural relationships. He however reads Naipaul‘s
travel narratives as his commitment to the ―idealized imperial England of his imaginings‖
(Nixon 37). Edward Said charges Naipaul of being Eurocentric and informer of the west. He
opines that Naipaul has ―allowed himself quite consciously to be turned into a witness for the
western prosecution‖ (Said, “Intellectuals...,‖53).Fawzia Mustafa is pained by Naipaul‘s
―misperceptions and inappropriate inquiries‖ with regard to ―Third-world issues‖ (Fawzia, 1).
According to Mustafa, Naipaul‘s link with language and the resultant intellect is ―partially
responsible for his implication within colonialist discursive practice‖ (Fawzia, 27). Selwin
Cudjoe terms Naipaul‘s work as ―imperialist‖ in its intent (Cudjoe, 191). According to Irving
Howe, Naipaul ―writes with a strict refusal of romantic moonshine about the moral charms of
primitives or virtues of blood stained dictators… He is a scourge of our disenchanted age, as
free of colonialist bias as of infatuation with Third world delusions‖ (Howe, 265-266).
Naipaul finds a strong defender of his works in the shape of Brent Staples who observes,
―Few writers of V.S. Naipaul‘s stature have been so consistently and aggressively misread on
account of ethnic and racial literary politics‖ (Staples, 1).
Some critics term Naipaul as Eurocentric. Mallikarajun Patil finds Naipaul a,
―cynical writer‖ who, ―visits India with a western eye‖ (Patil, 153). In the same vein D.S
Maini writes that ―Naipaul appears to have little respect for, and less understanding of the
Bhupinder 140
vast sociological and psychic changes now underway in India‖(Quoted in Ray, 153). Champa
Rao Mohan is of the view that Naipaul‘s ―works throw light on the postcolonial and post-
imperial realities that have shaped the contemporary societies‖ (Mohan, 17). Kh. Kunjo
Singh makes a harsh observation when he says:
V.S Naipaul never cared for the land of his own
birth and his people. He admits it was a mistake to
have been born there, that he always wishes to
forget it. Trinidad was for him a ―destitute society,‖
without history, without achievement, it is unlikely,
he cared for India. How can one expect a gratitude
to India, his ancestors‘ birth place, when he cannot
show a gratitude to his birth place? Indeed, Naipaul
writes for English-speaking people. (Singh, Kh.
Kunjo, 244)
Satish K. Harit in his article entitled ―V.S Naipaul and Indian Psyche‖ talks about Naipaul‘s
opinions about the democratic institutions in India. Harit suggests that Naipaul believes that
India is unable to follow the democratic model of Europe or the west:
[Naipaul] believes that any attempt at modernization
by Indians clearly reveals the confusions that India
is caught in. In his opinion India fails to democratise
its institutions on the western model because it is
still bound by ―Dharma of caste‖ which infects
politics, new and old. (Harit, 81)
Akhtar J. Khan, however, is of the view that Naipaul‘s projection of India ultimately is an
optimistic one. Khan observes that Naipaul:
In certain places… also projects complete dark
clouds but not, of course, without silver lining.
Along with the decay, decomposition, frustration,
fundamentalism and mutinies, he also observes
…deep consciousness of wholeness and humanism,
growth and restoration. (Khan, 71)
Manjitinder Singh in his book V.S Naipaul sees the positivity that India gained from the
mixing of Indian and the Western culture as according to him, ―No one is purely one person
or one thing‖ (Singh,134). He further points out that the dubious ―result of the imperialist
Bhupinder 141
consolidation of mixture of cultures and identities on a global scale reflect a dissolved
amorphous life in unlikely landscapes and settings‖ (Singh, 134). Naipaul‘s travelogue thus
may be taken as projecting varied aspects of his observations; at times assaulting and utilizing
while at others sympathetic, concerned, even caring about India. As such Naipaul is in the apt
words of Nicolas Mosley, a ―highly skilful writer… he spins his webs, his patterns, not, so
much to entrap the reader, as to make him think for himself.‖(Mosley). Hence, as the above
survey demonstrates, Naipaul‘s writing has provoked sharp reactions, both congratulatory
and criticizing from numerous critics and scholars. This indicates his stature in and
contribution to the emerging discourse in contemporary times.
India A Wounded Civilization, a book having only 175 pages, has been much studied
and commented upon by various critics and scholars. The book divided into eight chapters
has three major parts. In the first part entitled, ―An Old Equilibrium,‖ Naipaul gives
description of the Vijaynagar kingdom of the 14th
century. He points out how in the course of
time the Kingdom underwent destruction which led to a loss of a talent and intellect. It also
resulted in the loss of ancient traditions and history. Though the ancient monuments and
temples survived but with the advent of time, the spirit changed. The rulers of the time came
up with new plans and declared the Vijaynagar kingdom as backward. Naipaul considers this
as loss of history and its traditions. By beginning the book from the past, Naipaul attempts to
build a context, a perspective to understand Indian history and tradition. He also provides a
parallel to the time under focus in this book, as he writes:
…at Vijayanagar, among the pilgrims, I wondered
whether intellectually for a thousand years India hadn‘t
always retreated before its conquerors and whether, in its
periods of apparent revival, India hadn‘t only been making
itself archaic again, intellectually smaller…In the British
time, a period of bitter subjection which was yet for a
period of intellectual recruitment, Indian nationalism
proclaimed the Indian past; and religion was inextricably
mixed with political awakening. But independent India,
Bhupinder 142
with its five year plans, its industrialization, its practice of
democracy, has invested in change. There was a
contradiction between the archaism of national pride and
promise of the new; the contradiction has at last cracked the
civilization open (Naipaul, India: A Wounded Civilization
18).
Naipaul thus projects image of India as a ―wounded civilization…aware of
inadequacies…without the intellectual means to move ahead‖ (18). Naipaul however changes
his mood to an optimistic one as he makes an analysis of R.K. Narayan‘s belief that ‗India
will go on.‖
R.K Narayan, perhaps India‘s most loved novelist becomes the focus of the
nextsection of the chapter. In this section of the book Naipaul makes an analysis of R.K
Narayan‘s novels MR.Sampath (1949) and The Vendor of Sweets (1967). Srinivas, the hero
of the novel Sampath misinterprets the Hindu ideas of non-violence and karma. Srinivas
believes that karma means non-doing but according to Hindu philosophy the men should
engage in the service of humanity without aspiring to get the dividends out of it. Srinivas also
fails to understand the Gandhian philosophy. He believes in passivity but Gandhian
philosophy of non-violence is based on action. Naipaul also portrays the poverty of farmers
of North Bihar and Rajasthan which according to him were considered cultural heartlands of
India. Jagan, the fictional character of Narayan‘s novel is shown as the freedom fighter and
staunch supporter of Gandhian philosophy. The character of Jagan however undergoes
change after Independence as he begins to indulge in illegal means of minting money, like
non- payment of sales tax. Naipaul describes the hardships of life that the so called low caste
people face. This section is noteworthy because Naipaul gives detailed account of Emergency
and its aftermath. Naipaul observes that the declaration of emergency negatively impacted at
every level in the country.
Bhupinder 143
The second part of the book entitled, ―A New Claim on Land‖ deals with the
migration of the village populace towards the big cities like Bombay. This leads to problems,
such as finding accommodation for the working class which comes from villages. They are
shown as sleeping on the streets. Naipaul records his praise of the Shiv Sena who worked to
provide better facilities for those living in slums and settlements. Shiv Sena gained political
prominence by fighting for the people of Maharastra. But subsequently it also created
divisions between the two major communities. Naipaul claims that the community affiliations
of the people lead to rise of regionalism in India.
According to Naipaul, communalism and regionalism pose a serious threat to the
secular character of the nation. He writes about the Shiv Sena which was just making its
beginning in those years. Naipaul relates how the Sena was deriving political strength by
raising the religious and regional issues. The Indian rulers however still followed the former
colonizers with regard to governance. Naipaul found it painful that the Zamindari system
continued to be in force in free India. The rulers who claimed themselves to be the real
representatives of the people proved unsuccessful in their attempts to remove the flaws in the
political system, rather they became part of the system.
In the third and final section of the book entitled ―Not Ideas, but Obsessions‖ Naipaul
is critical of the movement started by Vinobha Bhave as he finds it futile and unable to
improve the lot of the landless and the poor people. Naipaul describes how in 1952, Bhave
had started the scheme of ‗Land Gift.‘ It was an attempt on Bhave‘s part to solve the problem
of the landless, the benefits of the plan however did not reach the poor of the country.
India: A Wounded Civilization thus provides an insight into how some dynamic forces
make politics a dirty game. Naipaul believes that the Indian political rulers lack the intellect
and vision to frame policies for removing the deficiencies. They cannot devise the ways and
Bhupinder 144
means to bring radical reforms in India. Indian political system in fact runs on the borrowed
institutions and ideas. The rulers of the postcolonial India follow their ex-masters while
drafting policies for the development of the nation. Even the people lack political awareness
about their rights and duties. Indians yet do not understand the idea of a welfare state. The
leaders see no threat from the politically ignorant people.
As Naipaul explores the images of India as portrayed in the works of R.K. Narayan,
he finds it mostly as ―…a world of prophecy and magic, removed from great events and
removed, it might seem, from the possibility of politics‖(20). Yet as Naipaul observes, no
land can be free from politics. Here too ―…politics did come; and it came, as perhaps it could
only come by stealth, and mingled with ritual and religion‖(20). An ordinary incident related
by Narayan in his autobiography, My Days (1974), becomes indicative of underlying political
tensions during the days before independence. As Narayan recalls, during his childhood, he
joined the Boy Scouts. ―But the the Boy scouts movement in Madras was controlled by Annie
Besant, the Theosophist, who had a larger idea of Indian civilization than most Indians had at
that time; and in sly subversion of Lord Baden-Powell‘s imperial purpose, the Besant scouts
sang to the tune of ‗God save the King‘: God save our motherland, ‗God save our noble land,
God save our Ind‘‖ (20).
Naipaul in a way praises Besant, who belonged to England even as he finds fault with
the people of India. Naipaul believes that her political activity was more meaningful as
compared to Narayan‘s uncle taking moral high ground and preferring to be ‗anti-political.‘
Naipaul relates that Narayan did not realize it, but he had taken part in the independence
movement of 1919 under the leadership of Gandhi. Narayan‘s uncle was averse to
participation in movements led by politicians as he was a non-political man. He ―condemned
all rulers, governments and administrative machinery as Satanic and saw no logic in seeking
a change of rulers‘ (20). Naipaul however finds Narayan‘s ‗small India‘ as too much removed
Bhupinder 145
from reality ―…a creation of art and therefore to some extent artificial, a simplification of
reality. But the reality was cruel and overwhelming…‖ (21). Narayan‘s works, as Naipaul
observes, had not prepared him to face ―the distress of India‖ (21). During his visit to India
Naipaul found that modern politicians were hardly bothered about the people of the country.
The change of guard after the independence had nothing new to offer to the masses. The
colonizers were shrewd tacticians who exploited Indians and the modern day rulers were no
different. They continued to follow in the foot-steps of the colonial-masters.
In the text Naipaul evaluates how much the ideology of Gandhian non-violence
served as an instrument to oppose the colonial rule. It was a tool to counter the political
activities of the British. But Naipaul opines that Gandhi‘s movement of non-violence would
prove to be useless in the politics of the day. Naipaul succinctly points out that ‗men‘ serve
as tools or the raw materials for the political activity. While serving as tools or instruments
for any political activity, the masses also become the maximum sufferers. They were used by
the colonizers during the colonial rule and now are being exploited by the neo-colonial rulers.
The common people, as Naipaul observes, are the disposables of the system, their suffering
is without any honor or worth. Naipaul points out that politics makes maximum use of its
instruments for promotion of its interests. The agents controlling the political activity devise
different ways to coerce and create division among the masses. They make the ‗men‘
continue to work for that particular political interest. Naipaul writes:
Cruelty no longer had a meaning; it was life itself. Men
knew what they were born to. Every man knew his caste, his
place; each group lived in its own immemorially defined
area; and the pariahs, the scavengers, lived at the end of the
village. (28)
In the chapter entitled ―The Skycrapers and the Chawls,‖ Naipaul elaborates how India is
divided into two classes: the haves and the have nots those living in the skyscrapers and those
Bhupinder 146
in the chawls. The rich enjoy various facilities while the poor are there to serve them. ―The
poor are needed as hands, as labour; but the city was not built to accommodate them‖ (58).
Naipaul looks at the urban India portrayed in Vijay Tenulkar‘s play The Vultures and notes
the disparity existing among the people. The poor work in the textile mills having antiquated
machinery which … ―should have been moved long ago‖ (59). Having a job at the mill does
not mean the workers have a better quality of life. The mill workers serve as mere
instruments of the men who are engaged in politics.
Naipaul believes that for survival in politics or for furtherance of political interests,
the political men constantly remain on the lookout for various resources. The resources are
used by the men in power to counter the strong oppositional forces which can pose a serious
threat to their power. Naipaul here may be seen as unable to comprehend the peculiar and
unique Indian tendency to unite against external threats even as they continue to be divided
on the basis of caste, language, religion, religion etc.
Naipaul highlights the role of money power in the game of politics. In India, all sorts
of practices like communalism, provincialism, regionalism and terrorism get funded by the
political parties. The much sought after and desired stability requires an enormous monetary
funding which India, a developing country, cannot afford to undertake. However, it may be
said that any social, cultural, political or technological system primarily and ultimately gets
driven on the force of monetary power.
Naipaul also observes that the princes who ruled the states before independence
looked after the masses and their interaction with people seemed to be real. There was an
emotional attachment with the land and the people they ruled. They engaged themselves in
the works concerned with the welfare of the people. Even the British carried out development
projects. It seems that Naipaul considers the princes (allies of the British) as better rulers
Bhupinder 147
than the modern leaders. Naipaul points out that the elected representatives of the day are
self-centered who hardly ponder about the problems of the masses. They lead a life full of
comforts and interact with people only during the elections. Like the colonizers and the
princes, the neo-colonial rulers indulge in mere lip service only. The politicians are adept as
good political actors and ordinary masses fail to understand the real character and nature of
these men. Naipaul‘s view of the past is however flawed, based more on nostalgia for things
gone by rather than on facts and reality.
Naipaul believes that Indians lack the spirit of nationalism as there are divisions on
the basis of caste, religion, region etc. Due to Illiteracy, lack of awareness, and exposure to
the globalised issues, Indians are narrow-minded while dealing with things. Naipaul
attributes the lack of unity among them to an underdeveloped ego. Yet Naipaul agrees that
during Gandhian era, Indians had the spirit of nationalism. Now he thinks that the loss of
beliefs and ideas have led to a loss of cultural values. Here Naipaul becomes the mouthpiece
of the western view which projects Indians as not fit to be effective rulers. In his essay ―The
Pitfalls of National Consciousness,‖ Frantz Fanon in another context aptly observes that the
leaders, who acquire power after the nation attains independence, hardly bother about the
masses. Rather they come to promote the interests of the national bourgeoisie and the ex-
Colonial companies. The ruler‘s contact with the masses is ―unreal‖ (Fanon 166). Fanon‘s
views expressed in another context may be taken as relevant to the Indian politics also.
Through R.K Narayan‘s Mr. Sampath (1949) and The Vendor of Sweets (1967)
Naipaul brings out the existing confusion in India. Narayan‘s former work presents images
of a ―…fictional world: the small and pacific South Indian town, little men, little schemes, the
comedy of restricted lives and high philosophical speculation, real power surrendered long
ago to the British rulers, who were far away and only dimly perceived‖(37-38). Narayan‘s
later work however presents a scenario where ―Narayan‘s small town could easily be
Bhupinder 148
insulated from the larger, restless world, could no longer be seen as finished and complete,
with the well defined boundaries‖( 38). The novel centers around the two characters, Jagan, a
sweet vendor and his son Mali. The search for greener pastures makes Mali migrate to
America. He elopes with a U.S. based lady and returns along with her to India. He plans to
start a printing press in India with his father‘s money as he has contempt for the sweet shop
run by his father. Naipaul finds the clash between the father and the son as symbolic of the
clash between Indian and Western cultures. Mali the new Indian is unable to adjust in the
West, on return however, he is equally a misfit in his own culture. Jagan represents India‘s
past culture, whereas his son represents modernity. The loss of culture and identity by Mali
leads him to an unhappy life. His life portrays the life of millions of people from
underdeveloped countries who migrate to the developed nations for better prospects but in the
process lose their moral, cultural, religious values and traditions. Naipaul is critical of the
political system of India which is unable to provide job opportunities to its population.
Naipaul thus finds embedded within the story of Jagan and his son, the clash between the two
world views prevalent in India: Gandhism of the pre-independence era, and Hinduism the
―…self-cherishing, faddism, and social indifference …‖ (43) of the post independence times.
In the changed political and social scenario, Naipaul believes that the Gandhian
ideology has become out-dated. Though Gandhi offered solutions to the worldly problems
and also gave useful tips for better life, Naipaul believes, the new Indians no longer wish to
conform to those ideals. Sudha Rai rightly points out, ―Gandhian standards and solutions
sustain Jagan in his own life but do not equip him for handling a changing India‖ (Rai 102).
Naipaul refers to how Jagan, a staunch supporter of Gandhi, worked for freedom struggle.
After independence however, Jagan began to indulge in illegal ways of minting money. He
became a professional businessman and nationalism was nowhere to be seen in him. He
continued to wear Gandhian dress to show that he was a Gandhian.
Bhupinder 149
…A multitude of Jagans, nationalist but committed only to a holy
war, had brought the country Independence. A Multitude of Jagans,
new to responsibility but with no idea of the state - businessmen,
money-hoarding but always pious; politicians, Gandhi-capped and
Gandhi-garbed –had worked to undo that Independence. Now the
Jagans had begun to be rejected, and India has discovered that it had
ceased to be Gandhian. (46)
The portrayal of Jagan is that of a staunch Gandhian who wears the Gandhian cap in an
attempt to imitate Gandhi, but he is not following the philosophy of Gandhi in practice as he
does not pay the sales tax. Naipaul describes thus:
He is fair with his customers; he cheats only the government of
the country for whose sake, in the British days he endured
police beatings… and imprisonment in an insanitary jail. (38)
Jagan thus symbolizes all things going wrong in the country after the independence.
The spirit of nationalism in Jagan of his youthful years is nowhere to be seen as he does not
pay his taxes. It is clear that, after the independence, the spirit of nationalism declined in the
leaders as well as the masses. They became more of politicians than nationalists. Fanon
makes a similar observation about the shift in the stance of the African nationalists. Fanon
observes that before independence the political leaders talked about the ―political liberty, and
national dignity,‖ but after the declaration of independence, the leaders hardly bothered about
the rights and privileges of the masses. Rather leaders become the ―general president of that
company of profiteers impatient for their returns which constitutes the national bourgeoisie‖
(Fanon 166). Jagan‘s transformation into a shrewd businessman thus may be viewed in the
light of Fanon‘s observation. Naipaul portrays the pathetic condition of the Indian masses
when he refers to Vijay Tendulkar‘s play The Vultures. Naipaul agrees with Tendulkar‘s
choice of the title which he feels aptly sums up the, ―… industrial or industrializing India,
bringing economic opportunities to small men (in the play, a family of petty contractors)
releasing instincts that poverty had suppressed, undoing old pieties, has become a land of
vultures‖ (49).
Bhupinder 150
Naipaul finds difference in the ideas of Tendulkar and Narayan with regard to religion and
traditions even though both belonged to Hindu Community. As Naipaul puts it, unlike
Narayan, ―for Tendulkar there is no pure past, and religion can provide no retreat‖ (49).
Tendulkar more realistically portrays the country as a changed one where men ―have become
more various and individualistic‖ (49). Naipaul refers to another of Tendulkar‘s plays,
Sakharam Binder, in which the hero of the play is a man of low caste. He earns his bread by
his technical skill, working as binder in one printing shop. He rejects the belief in Hinduism
and has no attachment with family or community. Sakharam becomes a symbol of the poor of
the entire India. Naipaul seems to show that the men reeling under poverty cannot be
expected to remain tied to the religious faith and old traditions. They can turn rebellious
against the political, religious and social institutions, as these are unable to provide solutions
to their woes.
Naipaul however acknowledges the magnitude of work required to be done for the
progress of the nation. He makes his observations in the context of his visit to a village in
North Bihar. Naipaul notes about Bihar ― for centuries the cultural heartland of India(Bihar
from vihara, a Buddhist monastery), now without intellect or leaders: in the south a land of
drought and famine and flood, in the north a green, a well watered- land of jute (like tall
reeds) and paddy, fishponds‖ (28). Its geographical conditions make it difficult to manage
and as Naipaul acknowledges, ―…in spite of all that has been done since independence, it
seems that enough will never be done; and despair turns to weariness, and thoughts of action
fade‖ (27-28). Naipaul however feels optimistic during his visit of Rajasthan, as he says:
If in North Bihar there seemed to be, with the absence of
intellect and creativity, an absence almost of
administration, here in Rajasthan was prodigious enterprise.
Here were dams and a great irrigation-and reclamation
scheme in a land cut up and wasted by ravines. (29)
Bhupinder 151
Naipaul thus emphasizes the importance of right kind of administrators who in spite of all
odds can achieve wonders even in the worst of conditions. This would be the kind of politics
or political system that Naipaul would prefer to have; one which is constantly involved in the
welfare of the people. Such a view finds echoes in an article ―The State‖ by Paratha Chatterji.
Chatterji writes about the green revolution of the 1960 which was aimed at increasing the
food production. The government provided the facilities such as irrigation, subsidy on
fertilizers, seeds and the minimum support price for the food grains in the states like Punjab,
Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh. Through this strategy the government was able to create
a ―new organized class interest- that of a rich farmer –would now become a player in the
national politics‖ (Chatterji, ―The State,‖ 5- 6). This indicates that it all depends upon the
dynamics put into practice; a positive approach would always lead to positive outcomes.
Naipaul also draws attention to the problem of child labor in Bihar. The sight of the
children employed as cheap labour further adds to the sense of hopelessness. Child- labour
deprives children of their constitutional rights. By allowing the exploitation of children, the
Indian rulers follow the legacy of colonizers. The colonizers exploited Indians as laborers;
today the capitalists continue to use children as labour. Naipaul describes this illegal act in
parts of Bihar thus:
Child‘s work: and children, being cheaper than men, were
preferred; so that suicidally, in the midst of an over –population
which no one recognized (an earth quake in 1935 had shaken
down the population, according to the villagers, and there had
been further thinning out during the floods of 1971), children
were a source of wealth, available for hire after their eighth
year for, if times were good, fifteen rupees, a dollar fifty, a
month. (28)
Naipaul portrays the pitiable condition of the children of the weaker sections of society.
They work as labour and groundnuts appear to be the only nutrition for them. Naipaul‘s
description of the prevalent practice of child labor in Bihar indicates how laws continue to be
Bhupinder 152
flouted by the rich and the powerful. Although child labor is against the law, yet the
landlords continue to exploit children. The lords have the protection of the men in power- the
so-called protectors of the rights of citizens, who have taken the oath of working in
accordance with the constitution. The plight of the weaker and downtrodden sections is such
that they do not have any option except to agree to their children working as labour. Through
child labor, the common people are conditioned to accept their exploitation as ‗normal‘ and
sanctioned by God and tradition. The political leaders who derive power by raising voice for
rights and privileges of children and weaker sections hardly bother about the welfare of the
masses after they attain power. It is pertinent to note that even decades later, the problem of
child labour has continued to plague the nation.
Naipaul‘s analysis thus may be seen as validating what Vilfredo Pareto theorizes in another
context, in his Treatise, as, ―[S]ociety is always governed by a small number of men, by an
elite, even when it seems to have a completely democratic organization‖(Pareto, 545). Pareto
also believes that the elite, whom he calls ‗lions‘ and ‗foxes‘ take turns to rule over the
masses or the ‗sheep‘ with force and/or cunning. As Pareto puts it, ―The world has always
belonged to the strong… Men only respect those who make themselves respected. Who-ever
becomes a lamb will find a wolf to eat them‖ (Pareto, 546). The cycle thus continues. If
however the common people threaten to disturb the prevailing political order, they are
―absorbed or eliminated—bought off or wiped out‖ (Pareto, 546). The Indian masses,
especially the working class and the laborers lack political awareness and lack the spirit to
fight against exploitation. The political leaders or the government then alone cannot be held
solely responsible for their misery; the masses themselves are also responsible for their woes.
Pareto‘s theory of political elites thus may be seen as providing the necessary frame-work for
understanding how power circulates, between the strong and the cunning, to keep the masses
under control through absorption and/or elimination.
Bhupinder 153
Naipaul is critical of the illegitimate power enjoyed by individuals or groups. In
India: A Wounded Civilization, he is critical of unrestrained power enjoyed by men like Mr.
Patel, the landlord, whom he met in an unnamed village. Naipaul says that people follow such
men simply because they are financially powerful. Naipaul describes the power of Mr. Patel,
the landlord of the village who is financially strong and the villagers are dependent on him
for financial help at the time of their need. Financially sound people are politically and
socially powerful. Though people like Patel are not the elected representatives still they
dominate as parties need their funding. As such the rural population remains under their
thumb. Being the downtrodden and financially weak, they are obligated to support the
political party of the choice of men like Patel. Naipaul elaborates, ―the Patel was landowner,
the biggest landowner in the village. He owned fifty good acres; and though he didn‘t own
people, the fate of whole families depended on the Patel. And to these people he was literally
the Master‖ (80). The benefits of democracy thus continue to elude the common people as
Naipaul emphasizes the unholy nexus between money and political power in India.
The democratic institutions at the grass-root level remain under threat as the domination by
custom, religion and consent continues even after independence. Mr. Patel could ―frustrate
the talk from Delhi about minimum wages, the abolition of untouchability, the rural
indebtedness. How could the laws be enforced? Who would be the policeman in the village?
The Patel was more than the biggest landowner. In that village where needs were still so
basic, the Patel with his house of grain ruled; and he ruled by custom and consent‖ (86).
Naipaul‘s portrayal shows the division of society at village level. Men like Patel are the
masters, while the peasants, the slaves who work for them.
Naipaul asserts that democracy comes under threat even from the elected representatives of
the people. The Sarpanch of the village is politically powerful, and the people respect him out
of fear. He indulges in corrupt practices like misutilization of government funds, but there is
Bhupinder 154
hardly anyone to raise a voice. Naipaul describes the misuse of political power by the
Sarpanch thus:
In the village it was accepted that the sarpanch was
blessed: he was distrusted, feared and envied as a
prospering racketeer. Some years before, he had collected
money for a cooperative irrigation scheme. That money
had simply vanished; and there was nothing that anybody
could do about it. Since then the sarpanch‘s power had if
anything increased; and people had to be friendly with
him, like the dusty little group scrambling after him now.
(79)
Grabbing power has been the sole motive of the leaders. Corruption, unemployment, poverty
and the oppression of the downtrodden remain unresolved issues even after years of rule by
the Indian government after independence. Independence has no meaning when there is no
rule of law and the people remain deprived of their constitutional rights. The role of
politicians is questionable. The colonizer plundered the country taking all the financial
resources. This is true of modern Indian state, as well. The political leaders use the
government institutions for their own financial gains. The owners of leading business houses
and companies derive benefits as they fund the elections of the key political parties. Politics
has become a business. The candidates and the political parties spend a large amount of
money to win elections and to attain power.
There has been a division in society on the basis of haves and have nots. The landlords keep
the laborers under their thumb. The so-called democracy has failed to provide independence
and social justice to Indian masses. With the advent of independence, power has changed
hands but without radical reforms. There is deprivation of the downtrodden and weaker
sections who are treated like slaves. Naipaul refers to the age old evil practice of
untouchability:
A boy seized by a village moneylender for an unpaid debt of
150 rupees, fifteen dollars, and used as slave for four years; in
Bhupinder 155
September, in Vellore in the south, untouchables forced to
leave their village after their huts had been fenced in by caste
Hindus and their well polluted; in October, in a village in
Gujarat in the west, a campaign of terror against untouchables
rebelling against forced labor and the plundering of their crops;
the custom, among the untouchable men of a northern district,
selling their wives to Delhi brothels to pay off their small debts
to their caste landlords. (47)
The above portrayal speaks the volumes of oppression against the lower strata of society by
the financially powerful men who enjoy political patronage.
The policies of political parties have widened the gap between the rich and the poor.
The issues of eradication of poverty and providing basic amenities to all are merely political
slogans used by the political parties to garner the support of the poor people. Naipaul shows
that the government was unfair by not providing basic amenities to the poor people while it
provided facilities like electricity to the landlords for the purpose of irrigation. Naipaul
describes this biased policy of the government thus:
Electricity wasn‘t for the poor. But the electricity hadn‘t
been brought across the plateau just to light the villages. Its
primary purpose was to develop agriculture; without
electricity the irrigation scheme wouldn‘t have been
possible. Electricity mattered mainly to the people with
land to work. (85)
Naipaul notes that the politics of the rulers promote capitalism in the country. Just as the
Indians raised their voice of dissent against the biased, discriminatory rule of the colonizers,
they continue to do so in independent India too. The people have to fight against the
discrimination meted out to them by their own elected government. The capitalist forces- the
industrialists and the landlords- have become the political necessity of the rulers.
Frantz Fanon in the context of Africa rightly points out that after the end of the colonial rule
in Africa the landed proprietors ―will insist that the state should give them a hundred times
more facilities and privileges‖ (Fanon, 154). He further writes that the miserable plight of the
Bhupinder 156
agricultural workers is likely to continue. He terms the landlords as new colonialists who
demand ―an enormous amount of work from the agricultural laborers, in the name of national
effort‖ (Fanon, 154-155). It can be said that Fanon‘s portrayal is true for all ex-colonized
countries including India. The poor masses continue to be under the thumb of the landlords.
Naipaul thus emphasizes how the political leaders of the independent India follow the legacy
of exploitative practices of the British rulers.
On the pretext of development, the politicians give benefits to their own men. The
people aligned with powerful politicians derive political and financial gains. Naipaul
describes how the development ―had touched people unequally‖ (87). The people like Mr.
Patel were engaged in minting money. They were in total control of the system and indulged
in the mis-utilization of public funds. This has increased the gap between the rich and the
poor as the politically strong men work for their own financial progress rather than for the
common people. The ministers or the high-ups in government are hand- in- glove with men
like Patel,and other small time politicians. Naipaul elaborates:
Backed up by people like the sarpanch, minor politicians,
minor officials, courted by administrators and the bigger
politicians, men like the Patel now controlled; and nothing
could be done without them. In the villages they have
become the law. (87- 88)
Thus as Naipaul observes the government institutions get hijacked by the financially
powerful people as the politicians and the political parties need their financial help during
elections.Naipaul thus makes a serious attack on the functioning of the men in charge of
political and administrative institutions. He blames the rulers and the officers who work
under them for the prevalent corruption and illegalities in Indian society. Naipaul is fully
justified in raising doubts about the administrative integrity of the men in power. It can be
said that the Indian political leaders are hand in glove with the corrupt administrators and
even criminals.
Bhupinder 157
Corruption gets religious and political patronage. Naipaul also focuses on the corrupt
practices of the religious institutions in India. The Ashram near Poona becomes notorious for
moral, sexual and economic corruption.
‗You must go to that Ashram near Poona‘, the Parsi lady
back for a holiday from Europe, said at lunch one day in
Bombay. ‗They say you get a nice mix of East and West
there.‘…It is a terrible place, It‘s full of American woman
who go there to debauch‘. (51)
The Ashram has political backing from the west. The Indian politicians remain silent on this
kind of activities in religious places for fear of losing vote bank. It may be noted that even
today the political leaders often visit the ‗Ashrams‘ or ‗Deras‘ especially during the elections
as these ‗Deras‘ have a sizeable followers who blindly follow the dictates of the ‗Deras.‘
Religious institutions with their control on people‘s choices constitute a significant factor in
the dynamics of Indian politics.
Naipaul elaborates on the views of Dr. Sudhir Kakar, a psychotherapist at Jawaharlal
University, New Delhi who practiced both in Europe and India, Kakar finds the Indian ego as
underdeveloped. According to Kakar, the underdeveloped ego is
created by the detailed social organization of Indian life,
and fits into that life...caste and clan are more than
brotherhoods: they define the individual completely. The
individual is never on his own; he is always fundamentally
a member of his group, with a complex apparatus of rules,
rituals and taboos...religion and religious practices-‗magic
and mimetic ways of thinking‘- lock everything into place.
(102)
Naipaul in a way approves of the views that Kakar has for the Indians. It may be argued that
through Dr. Kakar‘s observations, Naipaul asserts his own diasporic idea of Indian attitudes,
traditions and values. Naipaul criticizes the Indians who because of religious beliefs stand
divided into communities and as such fail to think positively for the nation or the society.
Naipaul as well as Kakar believe the western world superior to the Indian one.
Bhupinder 158
Naipaul reveals that the religious and political issues lead to division in the Indian society.
The religious ethnicity plays a vital role in politics. The region dominated by a community
has its impact on the election results. Political parties have to take into consideration the
majority population of the constituency while allocating the party ticket for elections. Some
parties raise the religious issues like cow slaughter or Ayodhya temple during the elections.
The question of the rights of minority crops up. Naipaul shows how the communal outfits
like Jan Sangh and Shiv Sena the Hindu out-fits attained prominence in the political field by
raising issues concerning the Hindu community. Jan Sangh is an urban organization. Naipaul
describes the politics of Jan Sangh thus:
A party which seeks a nuclear armoury for India, and
combines that with a programme for protecting the holy
cow … This party is Jan Sangh, the National party. It is best
organized opposition party; with its emphasis on Hindu
power, it touches many Hindu hearts… In the 1971
elections one of its candidates in Delhi ran purely on the
cow issue. (114)
Naipaul‘s observation is that the political parties know the art of using religion as a tool to
win over the people obsessed with religion. The Jan Sangh has been able to derive political
support of the Hindus which form the majority community in India.
Naipaul does not believe that India is a secular country. According to Naipaul, India does not
possess secular character. He says, ―You say that India has a secular character, which is
histotorically unsound‖ (Tejpal, 59).
Namrata Mahanta Rathore also opines in this context:
Fortunately or unfortunately, religion is part and parcel of
every Indian‘s identity. And this is not a recent
development. Right from the earliest years of
independence, our election campaigns have been won or
lost on issues as diverse as cow slaughter, Muslim personal
law and building of temples. The time has come for Indian
Bhupinder 159
intellectuals to accept the un-secular character of secular
India. (Mahanta, 68)
It is clear that Indian polity has never been truly secular. The Minority communities form
political parties to protect their respective interests. The political parties representing these
communities get engaged in a war of words leading to riots and violence. Looking at the other
extreme of the political spectrum, Naipaul critiques the role played by the Shiv Sena, the
Hindu out-fit that wielded more power than the elected representatives of the people in
Maharashtra. The Sena had formed own committees which were more powerful than the
municipal committees. A parallel government could be seen in Maharashtra which posed a
threat to the functioning of democratically elected government. Naipaul rightly pin points this
flaw in the Indian democratic set-up that allows the communal out-fits to have such immense
influence on the administration. This, Naipaul believes, has had serious implications for
Indian democracy. Naipaul describes the parallel power of the Shiv Sena: ―That happened
overnight, when the Sena gave a word; and the Sena‘s word was more effective than any
government decree‖ (62).
The Sena based its‘ politics on regionalism and communalism. The Sena men showed much
concern about the issues of one state and that too of one community. The spirit of nationalism
is missing in Sena men as they seek to promote the interests of the people of Maharashtra
alone. Naipaul describes the regional spirit of the Sena thus:
The Sena ‗army‘ is xenophobic. It says
Maharashtra, the land of Marathas, is for
Maharashtrians. It has won the concession from the
government that eighty percent of jobs shall be
held by Maharashtrians… (62)
The Shiv Sena‘s popularity can be attributed to the zeal and enthusiasm of the workers to
work for the Sena. The spirited members consider working for Sena as their religion.
Committed workers of Sena created cells at the grass-root level. They raised the issues of the
Bhupinder 160
welfare of the people of Maharashtra, which appealed to the masses. Namrata Mahanta
Rathore opines,
Sena politics worked at different levels. Apart from
political power, it inspired in the people at the bottom of the
social ladder a sense of self-respect and belonging. The
Sena committees, which were mostly run by enthusiastic
young men, worked at improving the quality of life of
chawl and settlement dwellers and thereby also
consolidated political goodwill and loyalty… (Mahanta, 54-
55)
It is clear that Naipaul in a way praises the Sena for the good work it did for the society. The
Sena, according to Naipaul, performed the work which municipal committee was to perform.
But the question arises how the Shiv Sena, without any legitimate authority could dictate the
terms in the political and social arena. This surely encourages many other organizations to
appear on the political scenario. Can the elected representatives work in a free manner when
such parallel forces start directing the administration? The administration, answerable to the
elected representatives, is under enormous pressure from the parallel undemocratic forces that
use undemocratic ways to have their way. The question then that needs to be addressed is,
why the illegitimate and boundless power of the communal and regional outfits comes to
flourish in the country. Any action against this outfit entailed hurting the religious feelings of
the Hindus. This, as they feared, could dampen their political prospects. The main political
parties at national level might have had apprehensions of losing the Hindu votes.
Regionalism is undoubtedly, on the rise in India. The regional parties are a product of the
regional politics- the local issues. The regional parties are more concerned about the people
of one region than the people of the entire nation. Philo and Parr describe the regions as
―relatively permeable, socially constructed, politically mediated and actively performed
―institutional accomplishments‖ (Jones and MacLeod, 434) Hence, the regional parties aim to
strengthen their own community in order to face the pressures from other regions even if they
Bhupinder 161
are from the same country. Rob Jenkins is of the view that all the regional parties are not
regional in their approach, but many of them are ―merely personality-driven offshoots of
parties that were once nominally national in scope‖ (Jenkins, 63). So the parties constituted
by leaders who once were part of the national freedom movement, over time have started
concentrating on the regional issues. In Sunil Khilnani‘s opinion, though the majority of the
regional leaders are not secessionist, they do not have a ―coherent view of Indian identity‖
(Khilnani, ―Branding India‖). This view however should not be taken as accurate and
applicable to all the regional parties.
The number of regional parties anyway is on the rise in the Indian political scenario and it
has its impact on the politics at the national level. For years no party could form the
government at the center on its own, and the national parties had to rely on the support of the
regional parties. It may be argued that this trend of regionalism leads to unstable governments
at the center with their weak policies, as the leaders of the ruling party are all the time
worried about the support of alliance partners with whose support they are running the
government. The politics of alliance has become a tendency due to the changed political
scenario. The regional parties threaten to withdraw their support in case the interests of the
state get neglected. The compulsion of the ruling party at the center to give more central aid
to certain regions dampens the overall progress of the nation as some regions gets neglected.
The regional parties work as coalition partners following the policy of give and take. Naipaul
at the specific juncture of time however does not see all the negative implications of the rise
of regionalism.
Naipaul focuses upon the Naxalbarhi movement of 1968 which proved to be an
intellectual tragedy as a large number of students from colleges and universities joined this
directionless movement. There was political instability in the country. The movement was a
revolt or reaction by the landless against the landlords. The government was slow to act and
Bhupinder 162
to control the movement. The entire country suffered tremendous loss due to this movement.
Naipaul describes how the people especially the students studying in universities joined the
movement. The young people got swayed by it. The police killed a number of youth in
encounters, and put many others behind the bars. The movement could not last long and, with
the passage of time, people forgot all about the movement and the sufferings heaped upon
them. Naipaul describes the movement as ―an intellectual tragedy, a tragedy of idealism‖
(93).
The Naxalites emerged due to the unrest among the masses especially the youth. The
problem of unemployment and poverty led to unrest among the youth and then to
revolutionary movements. The organized use of violence for overthrow of government,
though used briefly does not become a dominant characteristic of the dynamics of politics in
the country. Yet violence remains present in everyday life, in the actions of the powerful and
regulatory agencies such as the police etc. It is clear that the men in power lack the foresight
and intellect to find solutions to the problems of the masses. The politicians watch the
interests of the industrialists and the landlords only. The career of the youth is jeopardized
due to their participation in the revolutionary political movements. The apathetic and cold
attitude of the governments from time to time is responsible for the misguided movements of
this type.
Naipaul describes how authoritarianism poses a serious threat to Indian democratic
polity. In the guise of working for the welfare of the masses, the political leaders have their
own ulterior motives to continue to stay in power. Naipaul is also critical of Mrs. Indira
Gandhi‘s declaration of Emergency. The leaders and the parties continue their self-centered
politics with their agents up to the lowest level to work for them. As a result society, suffers
and the civilization is wounded. The politicians make little effort to heal the wounds that
Bhupinder 163
society suffers. The issues of poverty, unemployment, corruption, etc. adversely affect the
nation‘s prospects of becoming a developed nation.
Naipaul highlights the political issues pertaining to the Indian political system.
Naipaul focuses on the political situation in India when Indira Gandhi declared Emergency in
1975. Yet, as Naipaul aptly remarks, the real problem lay elsewhere:
The crisis of India is not only political or economic. The
larger crisis is of a wounded old civilization that has at last
become aware of its inadequacies and is without the
intellectual means to move ahead. (18)
Naipaul finds India suffering from lack of visionary and honest leadership which is affecting
political, social and cultural development of the nation. In his book, Naipaul’s Truth: The
Making of a Writer, Lillian Feder enumerates as to what makes for wounds in Naipaul‘s
India: A Wounded Civilization. These wounds, among other things, include poverty, India‘s
obsession with their country‘s past, persistence of caste restrictions, etc.
Naipaul points out that the men who dominate the present political scenario try their
best to usurp the less powerful political men or forces. Naipaul cites how after the
Independence of India in 1947 ―the princes of India … had lost real power in the British
time‖ (33). The princes yielded ―without much public outcry‖ (33) even when Mrs. Gandhi in
1971, abolished the privy purses and titles Naipaul describes how an Indian Prince holds a
grudge after the loss of his title due to the policy of Mrs. Gandhi‘s government to divest the
princes of their powers. Naipaul shows the helplessness of the Prince thus:
He said, unprompted, that he was ‗observing‘ the crisis of
Indian Democracy with ‗interest‘. India needed Indian forms
of government; India wasn‘t one country, but hundreds of
little countries; I thought he was building up the case for his
own autocratic rule. But his conversational course – almost a
soliloquy – was wilder. (34)
Bhupinder 164
The abolition of Princely titles by Mrs. Gandhi in 1971could be seen as a policy to suppress
parallel power in the democratic set-up. The powerful rulers like Mrs. Gandhi could not
tolerate such parallel political personalities to attain eminence. It is but natural that in politics
the men in power do not tolerate the emergence of personalities or forces that can
overshadow their own political existence. Naipaul describes the rule of the congress party
after independence as an ―immovable government, one- party rule, a democratic system
which engaged only a fraction of population‖ (140). Even Frantz Fanon has pointed out in the
―Pitfalls of National Consciousness‖ that the ―single party is the modern form of
dictatorship‖ which he terms as ―unmasked, unpainted, unscrupulous and cynical‖ (Fanon
165).
Naipaul is critical of the conduct of the politicians, who instead of serving the people, hanker
after power. According to Naipaul the Congress leaders who wear white homespun, are no
longer considered as men committed to serving the masses. The white homespun symbolizes
power engaged in terrorizing the opposition, the people, and press by dint of Emergency.
Naipaul points out that old India and Gandhi were symbolic of simplicity. But in independent
India the ―opposite of simplicity was the power politics...repression...‖ (142).
The ruling parties control the media to serve their political motives to promote their
party‘s agenda. For instance, Indira Gandhi imposed censorship on press during the
Emergency period to promote her own interests. Naipaul observes how since the Emergency
―the government-for obvious reasons-has wished that newspapers should look away from
politics and concentrate on social issues…‖ (131) Naipaul cites the example of the Illustrated
Weekly of India which succumbed to the political pressure and started writing about the social
issues like the bonded- labor and child- marriage. The description given by Naipaul shows
how the press loses its autonomy. As the media plays a pivotal role in the formation of public
opinion. The politicians are well aware of the importance of media and use all sorts of means
Bhupinder 165
to win over the media to their side. Naipaul is critical of imposing of censorship on
newspapers by Mrs. Gandhi- a fact symptomatic of how the political leaders use authoritarian
political power to silence the Press which can create dissent among masses against the
government.
The political activity links itself with slogans, missions, ideologies etc. Naipaul
demonstrates how Indira Gandhi created the issue of poverty, corruption and lawlessness to
justify her act of declaration of Emergency. All the political parties raised the issues which
were concerned with raising the living standards of the poor and the downtrodden. This
however remains empty talk. The political parties make allegations and counter- allegations
but ignore the real issues. Political leaders raise slogans in order to attract masses and create
public opinion in their favor so as to derive political power. Indira Gandhi made poverty as
the main political issue in 1971 parliamentary elections. The opposition gave a call for
removal of Indira. Naipaul describes how political leaders raised slogans to win people to
their side:
It was Mrs. Gandhi, in 1971, who had made poverty a
political issue. Her slogan in that year had been Garibi
Hatao, Remove poverty. Her opponents fighting another
kind of war had only replied Indira Hatao, Remove Indira.
(48)
Indian political leaders remained concerned about their own well being and they forgot the
basic issues concerning the welfare of the masses. One of the so called Emergency reforms
was to declare bonded labor illegal. Naipaul observes how ―twenty eight years after
independence, bonded- labour was declared illegal‖ (48), but Indira Gandhi‘s Emergency did
not produce the desired results. She was accused of having failed to remove poverty as
promised in 1971 by her. Naipaul observes that many Indians felt that the issue of poverty
had ―just been created‖ (113). The Emergency was her attempt to continue to remain in
Bhupinder 166
power. The issue of poverty remained unresolved as Emergency failed to bring any change in
the social conditions of the poor people.
Naipaul is of the view that Indian rulers have failed to see the deficiencies in the political
system. He believes that the colonial rule had dampened the political will and intellect of the
Indians. He writes: ―they have depended on others for the ideas and institutions that make a
country work. The Emergency-coming so soon after independence- dramatizes India‘s
creative incapacity, its intellectual depletion… (134) Satish K. Harit, however, contradicts
Naipaul‘s notion saying, ―…Indians whom Naipaul accused of incapability rejected the
emergency and enthroned the opposition party, further dethroned the opposition when they
were found wanting in the ruling capacity‖ (Harit, 81). Gandhi‘s philosophy or vision of
democracy failed when Indians were deprived of their rights with the imposition of
Emergency. However Indira Gandhi‘s defeat in 1977 elections may be seen as a sharp
reaction against the imposition of Emergency. Mrs. Gandhi lost the election even from her
parliamentary constituency. The Indians who got independence by bearing immense
sufferings had to fight for their rights in the independent India also.
The declaration of Emergency came to be seen as a wake-up call for the Indian masses. This
taught the nation to be vigilant against the threats within the country to democratic
institutions. The positive fall out was that it created the spirit of struggle among Indians as
they came together to fight against the despotic rule. The opposition parties got an
opportunity to resist the government on a serious issue. They were able to mobilize the
people against the Congress government. Jai Parkash Narayan, Morarji Desai and many other
leaders attained political prominence at the national level by creating an awareness against
Indira‘s Emergency. The formation of Janta party government in 1977 was a consequence of
the movement against Emergency. Naipaul describes how Jaya Prakash Narayan, the central
force behind the anti-Emergency movement delivered a speech just before his arrest. In his
Bhupinder 167
emotional and spirited speech, he gave a call to the masses of India especially the youth, the
working class and the peasants to oppose the fascist forces tooth and nail. He asked them to
pledge that they would not allow dictatorship in their country like Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Jayaprakash reminded the Indians of their old tradition of having village republics in the form
of panchayats. This tradition was broken by the colonizers to have their political control over
the nation. Jayaprakash referred to Gandhi‘s claim that Swaraj meant Ramraj- the ideal rule
of the masses. He gave a clarion call to fight against the Emergency. Naipaul however
disagrees with Jayaprakash‘s notion about return to ancient traditions and to Gandhian
philosophy, which, to him is quite irrelevant in the day‘s context. S. Shanmugam aptly
observes:
One cannot really understand why Naipaul has so much
contempt for Jaya Prakash Narayan who is portrayed to be
protesting, and a sterile in his political life. Naipaul is very
harsh when he points out that these Gandhians had
historical fantasy with religious exaltation and they wholly
depended upon the success of Gandhi. (Shanmugam, 50)
It may be said that Naipaul has a prejudiced view of the Gandhian path of non-violence.
Naipaul records how the Emergency had created terror among the masses. The people
seemed to have lost the spirit to fight for the restoration of the civil rights. However, it may
be said that this was true in the initial stages of the anti-Emergency movement only. With the
passage of time the people revealed their resolve to fight against the dictatorial policies of
Mrs. Gandhi and for the restoration of their civil rights. The spirited masses were successful
in their attempts as Mrs. Gandhi was forced to declare the elections to the Lok Sabha in
which congress party had to taste a crushing defeat. So it is wrong on Naipaul‘s part to say
that Indian leaders and masses failed to fight against the Emergency. The defeat of Mrs.
Gandhi and the congress party may be viewed as the ultimate victory of democracy in India.
It goes to the credit of the common people that the Indians used the methods available to
Bhupinder 168
them within the political system to set things right. In spite of caste, language; religion and
regional divisions on top of illiteracy and lack of exposure, awareness, etc., India still
emerged stronger and maturer through this trying experience.
Naipaul is also critical of Vinobha Bhave, another Gandhian. Naipaul describes how
in 1952, Bhave had started the scheme of ‗Land Gift.‘ It was an attempt on his part to solve
the problem of landless masses who were suffering from poverty. He planned to go on foot
encourage the landlords to donate their part of land to the landless people. This was an
attempt, on his part, as an imitation of Gandhi who used to go on walks and marches against
the colonial rule. Bhave‘s movement failed to get the desired results as Naipaul describes:
Magic hadn‘t worked; spiritually hadn‘t brought about land
distribution or more importantly, the revolution in social
attitudes that such a distribution is required. (165)
Naipaul observes that Bhave‘s walks and fasts proved futile as he lacked vision and could not
show anything tangible to the Indians.
Bhave‘s views about creation of a Ram-Raj free from the disputes or law- suits are far from
realities, given the political system of India. To ponder about creation of Ram- Raj in the
nation in which, the leaders‘ politics aims at creating divisions on the name of religion,
region, language, caste is futile. The idealism of men like Bhave can only be turned into
reality if the politicians have the spirit of nationalism. The harsh reality of modern day
politicians is that they retort to fair or foul means to achieve their political targets.
Naipaul felt that Vinoba Bhave was merely a symbol of Gandhism whom ―the politicians
would like to be on their side‖ (160). He remained associated with Jaipraksh in the 1950‘s,
but in 1975 when Indira Gandhi declared Emergency, he remained silent on the issue. It is
said that it was ―Mahatma‘s custom, in later years, to have a weekly day of silence. Bhave, in
emulation of Mahatma…had, imposed a whole years silence on himself…‖ (160). Bhave‘s
Bhupinder 169
silence on the issue of Emergency was exposed when Indira Gandhi personally visited Bhave
when he was seriously ill. The government deployed eight doctors to look after him. Vinobha
Bhave‘s conduct showed that he did not have the courage to oppose Emergency. He wanted
to side with the men in power so as to continue to remain recognized in the political field.
The question arises why a man who do not have any political aspirations yet sided with the
ruling party. The answer probably is that the men who attain prominence at the national level
by working for society do not want to lose their status. The alignment with the government
becomes their necessity as government‘s role in the promotion of social movements is vital.
Hence Naipaul projects Bhave as a political figure even though he is not a politician.
The answer to all the questions regarding threat to democratic institutions is that the
majority of Indian masses are bothered primarily about their own survival on the day to day
basis. Financially weak people cannot be expected to think about their own welfare or of the
community or the nation. The masses worrying about their survival cannot be expected to
fight for their constitutional rights. The need for survival makes the children of the
downtrodden work as laborers. The fault lies with the system where there is a disparity
between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots. There is mushrooming of the
political pressure groups in the name of religion, region etc. It has become the ‗political
necessity‘ of both the regional and national parties to garner their support in order to attain or
maintain power. The elected representatives of the people who claim to be harbingers of
democracy and upholders of constitution cannot justify encouragement of illegitimate
political activities of the regional or religious out-fits. The only thing that matters to the
political leaders is power. The politics of unholy alliances and the formation of political
groups in the name of religion or region in many states has become the order of the day.
Personality cult has always played a decisive role. During the period of Emergency, the
opposition parties condemn Mrs. Indira Gandhi for depriving Indian people of their
Bhupinder 170
constitutional rights but ―by implication she emerges as India‘s possible savior, because
Mohandas Gandhi and Gandhianism come out looking worse, for having imposed on India an
allegedly archaic, retrospective set of values‖ (Praag, 317).
To conclude it may be said that Naipaul in India: A Wounded Civilization aptly sums
up the implications of the prevalent dynamics of politics that, according to him have
‗wounded‘ the Indian civilization. Naipaul shows how the postcolonial politics of the rulers
promotes capitalism in the country. The Indians raised a strong voice of dissent against the
biased, discriminatory rule of the colonizers, yet they started indulging in similar practices on
gaining independence. The landlords continued to flourish while the workers, labourers
existed in miserable conditions. As per Naipaul‘s portrayal of the Indian society, the poor
masses are under the thumb of the landlords. The British wanted Indians working as slaves
for them. After independence however, the plight of the poor masses continues to be just as
miserable. It is but natural on the part of human beings to pass judgments or to make
contradictory statements about the past, present or future events. It may be argued that
anyone could show wisdom after the occurrence of an event. Naipaul‘s description about
India after the end of the colonial rule poses certain questions. Even though he has portrayed
the harsh realities of the Indian political, social and economic system, the fact remains, he has
not offered any solution to the problems facing the Indian masses. It may also be argued that
Naipaul has his own political agenda in portraying the deficiencies of the political, social and
economic system of the country. The very fact that he writes in English indicates that his
readers mostly are in the West. As such he caters to the demand of his readership to provide
knowledge about the former colonies like India. In nutshell, his viewpoint remains a
diasporic one.
Naipaul is critical of the Congress party for having begun to lose the Gandhian
principles. The party which had led the Indians from the front to liberate from the tyrannical
Bhupinder 171
rule of the British, over time has degenerated into an organization more concerned with
finding ways and means to remain in power. The politics of remaining in power has acquired
more significance than serving the Indian masses. Naipaul is of the view that the congress
party has dominated the political scenario after independence without much opposition from
any other party. It may be said that the politicians instead of serving the people, hanker after
power. They devise means and ways to acquire power. The rulers who claim to be the real
representatives of the people prove unsuccessful in their attempts to remove the flaws in the
political system, or, they themselves have become part of the system. As such Naipaul is right
in terming the Indian civilization as ‗wounded.‘ No attempt has been made by the rulers after
the end of colonial rule to do something to heal the wounds inflicted by the colonizers on the
rich civilization of India. The self-centered politics of the Indian rulers has brought the
country to a point where it has become difficult to work for the welfare of the masses. It is
indeed uncanny how apt and prophetic Naipaul‘s projections seem to be when one views the
contemporary political scenario of the Indian nation.
It can be suggested that communalism, commercialization and authoritarianism in
Indian politics is harming the spirit and legitimacy of democracy and thus dampening the
functioning of democratic institutions. Communal and regional politics result infighting
among the masses leading, to violence and loss of lives and property. The authoritarian
policies of the men in power kill the purpose of a democratic polity. The leaders in power
need to strive for uplifting the social status of the masses. Running the governments on the
borrowed institutions is in no way going to produce the desired results. India is different from
the European nations. The education of the masses, eradication of poverty can make the
functioning of democracy better. Otherwise, the capitalist forces will continue to rule the
democratic institutions through legal or illegal, democratic or undemocratic means. Naipaul
may have a pessimistic view of Indian society, yet as it has been proved time and again,
Bhupinder 172
democracy in India stays strong. Just as it seems as if everything is wrong with the system,
the people of India give befitting reply to political parties. Hence it is not possible to give any
final answer to the dynamics of politics prevalent in India.
Bhupinder 173
WORKS CITED
Chatterji, Paratha. ―The State.‖ The Oxford Companion to Politics in India. Ed. Niraja Gopal
Jayal and Pratap Bhanu Mehta. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010. 3-14.
Print.
Cudjoe, Selwyn R. V.S. Naipaul: A Materialist Reading. Amherst Mass: The University of
Massachusetts Press, 1988. Print.
Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Trans. Constance Farrington. New York: Grove,
1963. Print.
…. ―The Pitfalls of National Consciousness.‖ The Wretched of the Earth. Trans. Constance
Farrington. New York: Grove, 1963. 148-205. Print.
Fawzia, Mustafa. V.S. Naipaul. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Print.
Feder, Lillian. Naipaul’s Truth. New Delhi: Indian Log Publishers, 2001. Print.
Harit, Satish K. ―V.S Naipaul and Indian Psyche.‖ V.S Naipaul: Critical Essays -2. Ed.
Mohit, K. Ray. New Delhi: Atlantic, 2002. 76-84. Print.
Howe, Irving. Politics and the Novel. 1957. New York: Meridian, 1987. Print.
Jenkins, Rob. ―Appearances and Reality in Indian Politics: Making Sense of the 1999
General Election.‖ Government and Opposition. 35. 1, (2000). 49-66. Print.
Jones, Martin and Gordon McLeod. ―Regional Spaces, Spaces of Regionalism: Territory,
Insurgent Politics, and the English Question,‖ Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers. 29 .4 (2004). 433-52. Print.
Khan, Md. Akhtar J. V.S. Naipaul: A Critical Study. New Delhi: Creative Books, 1998. Print.
Bhupinder 174
Khilnani, Sunil. ―Branding India.‖ Seminar, 533 (Issue on India 2003) ‗India in the
Emerging Global Order: Strains, threats and possibilities.‘ December 2003. Print.
Mahanta, Namrata Rathore. The Indian Trilogy. New Delhi: Atlantic, 2004. Print.
Mehta, Niraja Gopal Jayal. Eds. The Oxford Companion to Politics In India. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.
Mohan, Champa Rao. Postcolonial situation in the Novels of V.S Naipaul. New Delhi: 2004.
Print.
Mosley, Nicholas. Listener, Quoted on the back jacket of V.S Naipaul‘s An Area of
Darkness. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 1968. Print.
Naipaul, V.S. India: A Wounded Civilization (First Published, Andre Deusch, 1977).
Calcutta: Penguin Books, 1979. Print.
Nixon, Rob. London Calling: V.S. Naipaul, Postcolonial Mandarin. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1992. Print.
Pareto, Vilfred. Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Vol. 1. Ed. George Ritzer. California: Sage
Publications, 2005. Print.
Patil, Malikarjun. ―Naipaul, V.S.: The Travel Writer.‖ Mohit K. Ray. Ed. V.S Naipaul:
Critical Essays -2. New Delhi: Atlantic, 2002. 143-155. Print.
Praagh, David Van. ―Review: The New India‖, Pacific Affairs, University of British
Columbia, 52:2. (1979). 315-318. Print.
Rai, Sudha. V.S. Naipaul: A Study in Expatriate Sensibility. New Delhi: Arnold- Heinemann,
1982. Print.
Ray, Mohit K. Ed.V.S Naipaul: Critical Essays - 2. New Delhi: Atlantic, 2002.
Bhupinder 175
Said, Edward W. ―Intellectuals in the Post-Colonial World.‖ Salmagundi 70.71 (1986):44-64
Print.
Shanmugam, S. ―A Study of Expatriate Vision in V.S. Naipaul‘s India:A Wounded
Civilization‖ IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social science (JHSS). 4. 2(Nov.-
![V. S. Naipaul...Sir V. S. Naipaul TC VS Naipaul in 2016 Bo r n Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul[nb 1] 17 August 1932 Chaguanas, Caroni County, British Trinidad and Tobago (present-day](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6131f740dfd10f4dd73a246e/v-s-naipaul-sir-v-s-naipaul-tc-vs-naipaul-in-2016-bo-r-n-vidiadhar-surajprasad.jpg)
