advertisement
Partha Chatterjee, a respected postcolonial scholar and a fierce critic of the Western model of nationalism, is in the middle of a frenzy over his article in The Wire, which ostensibly draws comparisons between General Dyer in Punjab and the Indian Army in Kashmir.
TV anchors have accused Chatterjee of providing Pakistan with ‘ammo’ to attack Indian democracy. The Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Venkaiah Naidu, has accused him of ‘ridiculing the Army’ and Twitter believes he is complicit in ‘#ArmySeGaddari’. Even journalists stand divided on the issue, with editors attacking him for “troll-quality intellectual laziness”.
In the essay, Chatterjee argues that there are uncomfortable, but undeniable similarities in the tone of the justification for the actions of the British Indian Army in Punjab in 1919 and the Indian Army in Kashmir and other counter-insurgency areas in 2017.
It’s a provocative essay; because it evokes an emotional association that Indians feel at the mention of General Dyer’s horrific atrocities in Jallianwala Bagh.
Indeed, most critiques of the essay are fixated on this one question: How dare Chatterjee compare General Reginald Dyer, the “Butcher of Amritsar” to General Bipin Rawat, Chief of Army Staff of the Indian Army?
As Chatterjee himself clarifies at the end of the essay on The Wire:
While analysing the statements where General Bipin Rawat supports Major Gogoi, Chatterjee raises pertinent questions about the extent to which the Indian Army should go to maintain its authority over an antagonistic civilian population. He asks, do we, like the British Indian Army, want an armed force which is feared by civilians?
It’s a logical question to pose, especially when General Bipin Rawat said on 28 May 2017 that civilians ‘must be afraid’ of the Army.
The Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisations, a union of twenty civil liberties and democratic rights association in India, released a statement criticising Rawat’s support of Major Gogoi. The conglomerate includes human rights organisations from Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur and Nagaland and they said:
In a similar vein, Partha Chatterjee writes about the extent of political support for General Dyer in 1919 and General Rawat in 2017 and raises the larger question of the role of Indian Army in a political discourse. Especially in India, where the Army is used extensively in counter-insurgency operations across the country. Chatterjee writes:
The backlash against Partha Chatterjee is intensely personal, with prime-time debates and trolls on social media calling him a ‘paid agent’, ‘ex-JNUite’ and in a baffling accusation, ‘a liberal.’ So, who is Partha Chatterjee?
Well, he certainly didn’t study in JNU.
Considered to be a pioneer in postcolonial theory, Partha Chatterjee studied in Presidency College in Kolkata and is a professor of anthropology in Columbia University.
He does this most powerfully in the book’s first chapter, “Whose Imagined Community?” – an academic clapback to scholar Benedict Anderson’s definition of a ‘nation.’
In the book, Chatterjee argues that nationalism for postcolonial countries like India should be ‘spiritual’ – defined by literature and language – rather than a ‘material’ nationalism of territory and borders, as defined by the state.
Twenty-four years ago, Chatterjee caused a stir in social sciences when he asked why colonies like India should adopt the concept of ‘nationalism’ from the West.
In 2017, he is being called an ‘enemy of the nation’.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)