Earlier this year, around the time of new year resolutions, I decided that I want to spend this year reading Hindi literature. I have read a lot of books over the past three decades of my life but a concerted effort on Hindi has not been the case. This year, I want to correct that. I wanted to start with something that is fun and easy to read. So, I looked at the satirical books and loved the title of Chakallas by Amritlal Nagar. When I picked up the book I had thought it will be funny, but it ended up being thought provoking.

These are satirical essays written between 1940s to 1970s, a few before and after. And thus give a view on the political and social thought of that time. Here are three political perspectives I gained from Chakallas by Amritlal Nagar.

How did 1857 affect India?

In the essay “He Babu Santavan Aaya Hai”, Nagar ji discusses India’s Sepoy Mutiny. Nagar Ji was born in 1916 and his social reality had elders who had seen the ‘57 Gadar (mutiny). According to Nagar Ji, the people who had gone through the “Gadar” had a very strong sense of well being in the Queen’s rule. For me, this was a completely different perspective. I am used to looking at us as oppressed people during the intervening years till 1947. The entire fight for independence starts from 1857 and culminates in 1947. This new perspective was very intriguing. Nagar Ji makes three observations that drive this perspective –

1. Prior to 1857, India was less a country and more a collection of small feudalistic territories. Nagar Ji also points out that this is not in terms of recognizing Bharat as a country. We have been doing that since the days of ancient texts including Vedas and Puranas. We talk about the seven rivers and the seven mountains etc. However, in terms of political composition our country was a collection of feudalistic states. Imagine being a farmer in Avadh who needs to go to a relative’s marriage in Bengal during 1840s. Your state is ruled by a Nawab, and the destination state is ruled by the British as part of the Calcutta presidency (by then the Nawabs of Bengal were there just in name). In between the two states lies land which is not ruled by anyone and where bandits are waiting for you. Then there is a feudal mindset where anyone associated with the ruling class feels free to do as he pleases. The Mughal Sultanate is gone and the Nawabs are also largely ineffective. You are essentially a population without a ruling authority. The changes brought about by the British in the aftermath of Gadar, made some of things right. The land had one ruler – the Queen, there was a law of the land and there were places to go if you needed access to the law. From a feudal life to this state was a positive change in the life of general population.
2. Rise of participation of Indians in the administration of India. As Nagar Ji calls it, rise of the Babudom, the backbone of Administration in India. As the territories to govern became large and the control shifted from the East India Company to the British monarchy, the invaders needed people who could act as a mediator between the rulers and the ruled. The one qualification needed was English. With this one qualification, there was an opportunity to expand one’s horizons and plan for a better future. This education and exchange of ideas ultimately reached its culmination during the Indian struggle of Independence in the 20^th century. Mahatma Gandhi, J L Nehru, and even Jinnah – all of them were educated in the ways of the British.
3. An opportunity to go beyond the strict caste system. This was an offshoot to the Babudom. In order to get in the role of Babu, you just needed to know English. Once you have learnt that, you had an opportunity to be part of the administration and in your village, your area you will be something of a Sahib even if the strict caste structure pushes you down.

Most of what Nagar Ji writes about is based on what he had heard from his elders and the conclusions he formed from that. In my view, as long as the British considered us as a separate class there is no glory in anything that they did. To the people at the time, the rule of the “Queen” may have seemed like an upgrade from the rule of the “Nawab”. But slavery is slavery and the struggle was bound to happen.

Nehru’s failing as a leader

In the same essay, Nagar ji explores the downfall of the ruling class in India. While talking about the 1857 Gadar, he traces the history of leadership in India. In his words, the leadership was in decline since the last days of Akbar. Jahangir revolted against his father and was jealous of his own son. Shahjahan murdered his brothers. Aurangzeb murdered his brothers and put his father in the prison. If the first family of the society becomes this immoral, then what can be expected from the rest of the society.

By the time we arrive at Bahadurshah Jafar, the Mughals were a completely spent force. From the 1857 Gadar arose a wave against the feudalistic setup and in that wave leaders of national import emerged.

Nagar Ji says that when Mahatma Gandhi was the leader of the Congress, he took along the next two generations in his politico-social identity.  You could take a look at the leadership and can clearly identify who all can handle the growth and aspirations of the next generation. But that is not true of Nehru. There is no one who is next in line.

This essay is from mid 1950s. We have seen what has happened after Nehru. The Congress ultimately became one with the identity of Nehru. His family and descendants are carrying the grand old party even today. Nehru would’ve done well to groom leaders within the party who could carry on the legacy. After all even though they are all called Gandhis today, Pandit Nehru was not a son of the Mahatma. Still, he was the leader after Gandhi.

Political opposition crossing a line

In his essay “Cheen-Prachin Puraan Varta”, written in 1963, Nagar Ji comments on the social and political situation of the year with the help of three ancient rishis – Suta Ji, Shaunak Ji and Kakabhushundi. For the readers unfamiliar with the names, entire Mahabharata is a tale told by Suta Ji to Shaunak Ji and the Ramcharitmanas is narrated by Kakabhushundi to Garuda. They are prominent sages in Hinduism.

In one sequence, the three sages arrive in Varanasi where the Sangh (Jansangh or the RSS, used interchangeably at that time) has created an exhibition – Ma ki Pukaar (Call of the Mother). When the exhibition organizers see the three sages they are overcome with happiness. The organizers request them to grace the exhibition by their presence. The sages accept the invite.

While going through the exhibition, Suta Ji (the senior most sage) notices a poster. The poster is described thus – there is a smiling picture of Nehru Ji in the center. The picture is garlanded with severed heads. And the picture itself is propped up on the points of two bayonets attached to rifles. At the bottom of the poster there are children who are looking at the picture with an expression of horror. To complete the exhibition, there is a note – “Will India tolerate this insult to the Prime Minister?”

Suta Ji asks the organizer – “Is this picture sent by the Chinese to insult us?”

And the organizer says – “No sir, this is made by our own artist here to showcase the insult done by the Chinese.”

On this reply, Suta ji opines and I am summarizing that opinion – the Chinese don’t need to do this kind of insult if we ourselves are capable of doing this. What is the meaning of creating a picture where our Prime minister is wearing a garland of severed head of our soldiers and he is smiling. If we as citizens of this country are able to demonize our own democratically elected head of state like this, China doesn’t need to do anything.

While reading this, I thought how time has changed the position but not the nature of this opposition. What Nagar Ji says here using Suta Ji as a medium holds true even today. It happens quite often that the opposition for a person or party crosses the line and becomes opposition to the government he/she is heading. And sometimes crosses another line and becomes opposition to the nation itself. I have seen this happening in the current political climate in India.

We had another border situation with China not so long ago. And during the Galwan valley episode there were people who could have created the same picture with another leader at its center. China doesn’t need to insult, we are capable enough. Nagar Ji could criticize Nehru for not grooming the next level of leadership. But then he could criticize the Sangh for portraying him as a demon. We need to bring back this level headedness in our society where people can think beyond parties and leaders.

If you like Hindi and enjoy reading satire which can make you think, Chakallas is a great book. If you have any thoughts on the perspectives explored in this post, I will be happy to discuss.