Sunday, November 30, 2008

Pandurang Khankhoje

Savitri Sawhney, I shall Never Ask for Pardon: A Memoir of Pandurang Khankhoje, Penguin, New Delhi, September 2008.

The National Movement in India comprised individuals of various hues. The attempt by the imperialist historiography to portray them as self seekers in the institutional openings created by British indeed needs to be critiqued. The biography under review depicts a man who exemplified commitment to the nation and its downtrodden. However this was no sectarian, narrow or chauvinist commitment. Khankhoje made a link between the downtrodden in India and the downtrodden across national boundaries. It was thus a transition from an armed revolutionary to an agricultural scientist of repute in far away Mexico was made.

Khankhoje was what E.H. Carr has called a ‘romantic exile’. He left the country to explore avenues for training in arms and possibilities of a revolutionary overthrow of the British rule in India. This was at a very young age of 19 and after travelling through Japan, China and several other countries he reached the United States. Working as a labourer and restaurant waiter he studied at the Oregon University to earn a degree in agriculture. It is here that the foundations of the revolutionary Ghadr movement were laid. He depicted himself as a man of action and thus headed the ‘praharak’ (action) wing of the Ghadr movement. The casual way in which Khushwant Singh dismisses his association with Ghadr is not borne out by facts. Harish K. Puri in an article in Social Scientist in 1980 described Khankhoje as the head of the armed militant wing in the revolutionary organization of Ghadr. Similarly, his name comes up in the various accounts of the time. That he had to be low profile was a price he had to pay for organizing armed training and mobilization. Savitri Sawhney in her account tells us that he often disguised himself as a muslim and assumed names such as Pir Khan. She has done a signal service to the scholars of the national movement by bringing out an account based on Khankhoje’s personal papers. We get to know of Khankhoje’s trials and travails as he makes contact with democratic movements in China (where he meets Sun-Yat-Sen), Japan, Persia and Russia. The attempts at armed mobilization were not without danger as Savitri Sawhney tells us of the time when he was shot and wounded and was taken care of by a nomadic Persian tribe.

Khankhoje turned towards the left revolutionary politics in the 1920s. Along with Virendernath Chattopadhyay he met Lenin in Moscow in 1921 and submitted a thesis on the Indian question.

A revolutionary cannot be permanently plotting and carrying out armed revolution. Khankhoje in US had acquired degrees in agriculture at a US university. As Sawhney points out the inspiration to work on agriculture had initially come from his meeting with Sun-Yat-Sen. In his meeting with Lenin she tells us that Lenin had asked in detail about caloric and nutritional requirement of the Indian worker. It is these inspirations which fuelled Khankhoje’s research in agriculture when he took asylum in Mexico. His contribution in developing a new variety of corn is well documented in various histories of agriculture.

Savitri Sawhney’s account is indeed a tribute of a daughter to her father. There is nothing to be apologetic about that. Indeed her sparkling narrative tells us of the happy memories of her childhood and her father. In spite of the stresses and strains of the revolutionary commitment he managed to give that to his family is indeed an achievement.

Pandurang Khankhoje

Savitri Sawhney, I shall Never Ask for Pardon: A Memoir of Pandurang Khankhoje, Penguin, New Delhi, September 2008.

The National Movement in India comprised individuals of various hues. The attempt by the imperialist historiography to portray them as self seekers in the institutional openings created by British indeed needs to be critiqued. The biography under review depicts a man who exemplified commitment to the nation and its downtrodden. However this was no sectarian, narrow or chauvinist commitment. Khankhoje made a link between the downtrodden in India and the downtrodden across national boundaries. It was thus a transition from an armed revolutionary to an agricultural scientist of repute in far away Mexico was made.

Khankhoje was what E.H. Carr has called a ‘romantic exile’. He left the country to explore avenues for training in arms and possibilities of a revolutionary overthrow of the British rule in India. This was at a very young age of 19 and after travelling through Japan, China and several other countries he reached the United States. Working as a labourer and restaurant waiter he studied at the Oregon University to earn a degree in agriculture. It is here that the foundations of the revolutionary Ghadr movement were laid. He depicted himself as a man of action and thus headed the ‘praharak’ (action) wing of the Ghadr movement. The casual way in which Khushwant Singh dismisses his association with Ghadr is not borne out by facts. Harish K. Puri in an article in Social Scientist in 1980 described Khankhoje as the head of the armed militant wing in the revolutionary organization of Ghadr. Similarly, his name comes up in the various accounts of the time. That he had to be low profile was a price he had to pay for organizing armed training and mobilization. Savitri Sawhney in her account tells us that he often disguised himself as a muslim and assumed names such as Pir Khan. She has done a signal service to the scholars of the national movement by bringing out an account based on Khankhoje’s personal papers. We get to know of Khankhoje’s trials and travails as he makes contact with democratic movements in China (where he meets Sun-Yat-Sen), Japan, Persia and Russia. The attempts at armed mobilization were not without danger as Savitri Sawhney tells us of the time when he was shot and wounded and was taken care of by a nomadic Persian tribe.

Khankhoje turned towards the left revolutionary politics in the 1920s. Along with Virendernath Chattopadhyay he met Lenin in Moscow in 1921 and submitted a thesis on the Indian question.

A revolutionary cannot be permanently plotting and carrying out armed revolution. Khankhoje in US had acquired degrees in agriculture at a US university. As Sawhney points out the inspiration to work on agriculture had initially come from his meeting with Sun-Yat-Sen. In his meeting with Lenin she tells us that Lenin had asked in detail about caloric and nutritional requirement of the Indian worker. It is these inspirations which fuelled Khankhoje’s research in agriculture when he took asylum in Mexico. His contribution in developing a new variety of corn is well documented in various histories of agriculture.

Savitri Sawhney’s account is indeed a tribute of a daughter to her father. There is nothing to be apologetic about that. Indeed her sparkling narrative tells us of the happy memories of her childhood and her father. In spite of the stresses and strains of the revolutionary commitment he managed to give that to his family is indeed an achievement.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Friday, November 7, 2008

Afghanistan: The Scenario at the end of 19th century

Afghanistan: The Scenario At The End of 19th Century

Various scholars and historians have offered the view that Afghanistan was the focal point of ‘The Great Game’ being played between Russia and Britain in the late 19th century. This great game was ostensibly to prevent a Russian invasion of British territories. However, Malcolm Yapp has pointed out that the Britons used the term ‘The Great Game’ in late 1800s to describe several different things in relation to their interest in Asia. Moreover he argues the meaning of the ‘Great-Game’ which is currently popular with the historians does not reflect the real concerns of the British in relation to India in the 19th century. Yapp believes that the primary concern of the British authorities in India was the control of the indigenous population, and not preventing a Russian invasion. Examining the documents of this period ‘one is struck by both the prominence and the unreality of the strategic debates’. These debates he argues in fact obscure and cover up the challenge of internal control of India.

The challenge of internal control I am going to argue, stemmed from the nature of diverse regional polities which had developed in India. As the Chicago school historians have pointed out, these polities drew upon the resources of kinship & lineage societies which pre-dated the Mughal imperial structure. If we look at the structures of institutions of these societies (e.g. Punjab) we find a commonality in their basic assumptions transcending boundaries of Jammu& Kashmir and in of Afghanistan. There is plenty of evidence for the interrelationship between these Tribes in terms of alliances and wars. You had Afghan adventurers like Ahmed Shah Abdali forging right into the territories of Punjab. Similarly within the courts of Mughals and others there was an important component of Afghan nobility.

Various historians have drawn attention to institutions amongst these tribes which are best labeled pre-territorial. Indu Banga has described amongst the tribes of Punjab institutions like Rakhi which supplied the tribes ‘the idea of conquest before conquest’. Levies of Rakhi which basically meant a protection rent were on produce with the caveat that these were for the protection of the cultivators and not for acquiring of their territories. Territories may or may not be acquired but the crucial conceptions were of protection, of keeping up the status of both the protector and the protected. Similarly amongst Afghans these crucial markers of status were important. Keeping the nose in Afghanistan i.e. Puzu or Pozu was a crucial determinant in the relationships between the protectors and protected as Elphinstone has pointed out. Similarly for a host of other practices the notion of territory had not yet evolved in the modern sense.

The British who interfaced with the Indian and Afghan tribes in the 19th century however came with an evolved notion of territory. For them conquest meant setting up areas of delimitation rather there rights to produce or other products of land. Witness the number of delimitation commissions they set up in the 19th century. Controlling the indigenous population meant subjugating the pastoral, nomadic or mobile nature of the tribes in question and settling them down to definite territorial occupations like cultivation as Neeladri Bhattacharya has pointed out. However the presence of the tribal, nomadic and mobile groups did present an area of incomprehensibility. In the areas they could not subjugate they set up treaties and agreements with collectives of tribes. These treaties are at once witness to addressing to the territorial security concerns of the British as well as agreements of defence (non-territorial) of the tribals of the region spanning Punjab, Jammu& Kashmir, North West Frontier Province and Afghanistan.

To a certain extent the great game which received so much of strategic attention in Russian context when seen on the ground actually translates into these concerns of securing the local population. Treaties Engagements Sanads, a document of agreements with various tribal chiefs compiled by C.U. Aitchison actually testifies to the concerns regarding local indigenous population, keeping lines of communication like telegraph going through the areas which these tribes inhabit and securing boundary markers – the famous delimitation exercises carried on by the British.

Let me illustrate with a few examples from the document:

An agreement dated 14th January 1902, (P. 162 of Aitchison) is regarding payment of Tirni ie. the grazing tax. A definite delimitation exercise which subject the Suleman Khel tribes in the North West Frontier Province (Derajat) to certain definite territorial rules. By this they bound themselves to the British for:
paying a grazing tax in future both in the Zhob district and in the Wazristan district at rates which are fixed now at per head of the cattle. For example male camels 8 annas per head and female camel one rupee per head.

However, here concerns of how they would be viewed by other tribes for this act of delimitation also comes in. The agreement quotes “we hold ourselves responsible for the collection of the grazing tax with the assistance of the Govt. when necessary. We can however agree to this on the understanding that grazing tax at the same rates be taken from the Dottanis, who graze alongside us within the Waziristan limits. Otherwise, we shall disgraced in the eyes of the other Ghilzais”.

Thus the contract or agreement of territoriality incorporates the concerns of status. Suleman Khels will pay the tax at the same rates as the Dottanis or otherwise they will be disgraced. This concern is addressed to the British Government. Thus the British Government instead of operating on rule of law is ask to satisfy concerns of status and there by bring it as a criteria of governance. Thus a tribal criteria is brought to the fore.

Similarly in an agreement dated 20th February 1872, with the Dour tribe of the Derajat Frontier “That for due fulfillment of the above conditions (of behavior and crime) of this agreement we the people of entire tribe, unitedly and severally hold ourselves responsible for our own distinct clan, and if we fail, British government is authorized to lay an embargo on the property of the each faction and to impose punishment on our tribe according to the Frontiers Rules as is done with other tribes”. Moreover in order to testify the “ Free-Will and sincerity with which we have made this agreement, the following men respectable Maliks, British subjects and also Maliks of independent territory who frequent British territory are given as securities to have above named conditions fully carried out”.

So here again in a territorial contract the tribal notions of clan as responsible unit or security of individual men as in tribal practices is given to formalize a territorial agreement.

The Aitchison volume has similarly many agreements testifying to the tribal concerns which have crept into concrete territorial agreements of the British. The Great Game here seems to be addressing these concerns in the notions of territoriality of the British. The strategic debate around the threat of Russian invasion actually masks a number of these agreements effected on the ground. The Russian ‘outsider’ then coincides with the mythical outsider of the tribes against which territorial and tribal security is ensured by these agreements.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

The Problem with History

We have been through a whole period of public debate and discussion on teaching of history in schools & universities. Ad nauseum we have been told that such and such curriculum has excluded this or included that. Hurt feelings and sentiments are touted again and again. In this din ironically what has been lost is that there are certain basics of teaching history. What we have been served up has so far been the political and ideological flavor of the broth of history, its basic ingredients relegated to the obscure background of forlon departments and obscure archives.

It needs to be pointed out that history is basically a reconstruction of the past. This reconstruction follows certain established procedures for gathering, interpreting and presentation of the data from the remains of the past. This reconstruction done by an individual historian for a particular theme is subjected to a process of review amongst fellow historian and then served up as material for our consumption. This process is repeated for a variety of themes historians tackle and then perhaps a group or a collective of historians renders these reconstruction into a text book and normally this serves as history. The historians and perhaps the text book writer is conscious of this aspect of reconstruction and knows that most of the findings are subject to further debate and questioning.

However, to most of the unsuspecting readers of this fare this aspect is never revealed. Even if mentioned, it becomes a matter of little importance and mostly is brushed under the carpet. The most glaring aspect of this omission is that in the debates on history so far not one writer has thought it fit to argue that this process of reconstruction can be within the purview of the learner of the history or that he can be empowered to participate in the process in any meaningful manner. In contrast in UK or the west this process gains an importance through a series of local workshops and history in the backyard strategies. The crux of these learning strategies place the learner centre stage and makes him an active partner in reconstructing his/her past and give insights into his/her own development process. This does not mean that the professional historian is belittled or what he has to say looses relevance. What actually happens is that the amateur spirit of the learner is tapped. He is encouraged to either search his local context or through an appropriate strategy of familiarizing him with sources and process of history writing he is brought into the method of writing history.

Here in India, for both pedagogical and political reasons this aspects never sees the light of day. Rather an attempt to ideologise history is the basic thrust. Here even the scientific writings are taken over and paraded to favor one ideological camp or the other. Ideologisation of course serves variety of political ends but for the process of teaching learning history it is seldom sufficient to generate the desired nature of historical sense. For this reason alone it is important that we delineate history from ideology. Of course an awareness of what ideologies are and what they do could also be a part of historical training. But the areas need to be demarcated and put across as such.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Welcome

Welcome to my blog!
Ajay Mahurkar