30

Prasenjit K. Basu’s recent book Asia Reborn: A Continent Rises from the Ravages of Colonialism and War to a New Dynamism has been causing ripples in academic circles for its razor sharp analysis. The book is being heralded as the first Asian economic and political history narrated by an Asian and has bagged The First Book of the year (non-fiction segment) recognition from prestigious Tata Lit Fest. BE’s Kingshuk Banerjee spoke to Prasenjit K. Basu regarding his recent literary work.

Q. How did the idea of writing this book come about?

A. I have been fascinated by history since I was a boy. As a graduate scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, I began to grapple with why East Asia had done so much better economically as compared to the Indian subcontinent. When I moved to Singapore, I began to examine why there was such a vast difference between the economic success of Japan’s former colonies (Taiwan, Korea, and north-eastern China) and the rampant poverty in the Indian subcontinent. That was how the idea of this book occurred to me.

Q. We know you did extensive research for collecting the information. Could you please tell us regarding the work?

A. Over the past two decades, I read voraciously, travelled across the region and built up a large collection of books during my travels (including for both business and leisure/tourism). I first started writing in 2005, and completed writing a long introduction — but I suffered a setback when my laptop was burgled in KL the next year. I began writing again in 2013 and the lost introduction metamorphosed into a shorter prologue and a long first chapter. I sent the prologue to David Davidar in September 2013 and he offered me a contract six hours later — and the book took over my life for the next three years. I wrote at my desk, during the evenings after work, and especially on business trips. The solitude of a hotel room or of a flight seat proved particularly conducive to writing.

Q. How was the process of writing of this book?

A. I have been gathering material for the past 20 years. I wanted to understand why it is that the parts of Asia that were ruled by Japan are precisely the parts that are most prosperous and the parts ruled by Britain the longest are the poorest. I was also struck by the fact that almost every Indian family in Singapore and Malaysia had someone who had joined the Indian National Army (INA) or Indian Independence League (IIL) and they all swore by Netaji 50 years later. I have been studying our independence movement since I was 12 years old and was struck by the long periods (1922-29, 1933-37, 1943-45) when nothing seemed to be happening with the mainstream Gandhi movement. Examining it properly led me to the inevitable conclusion that it was the INA that finally defeated the British - not at war (since they were defeated at Kohima and Imphal after the victory at Moirang) but by undermining the implicit loyalty of the British Indian armed forces, which were the basis of the British imperium. In 1919, the British had responded to the Ghadarites by imposing the Rowlatt Act; in January 1946, the British were left cowering by the national upsurge that followed the INA trials and they acquitted Sahgal-Dhillon-Shahnawaz for fear of mutiny. A mutiny did nonetheless break out over the next six weeks, with 5200 Air Force personnel and 78 of the 88 ships of the Royal Indian Navy mutinying. Attlee was forced to announce that he would send three of his senior most colleagues to negotiate India's freedom. Our Independence Day should be 19th February (1946), and our first Prime Minister was Subhas Bose. It was Bose who created the Provisional Government of Free India on Oct 21, 1943. This statehood was recognised by nine countries and acknowledged as the legitimate government of an enslaved population by Bhulabhai Desai during the INA trials.

Q. INA formed a great part of your book. Could you please tell us how you approached your sources in South East Asia? Q. How did the idea of writing this book come about?

A. I have been fascinated by history since I was a boy. As a graduate scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, I began to grapple with why East Asia had done so much better economically as compared to the Indian subcontinent. When I moved to Singapore, I began to examine why there was such a vast difference between the economic success of Japan’s former colonies (Taiwan, Korea, and north-eastern China) and the rampant poverty in the Indian subcontinent. That was how the idea of this book occurred to me.

Q. We know you did extensive research for collecting the information. Could you please tell us regarding the work?

A. Over the past two decades, I read voraciously, travelled across the region and built up a large collection of books during my travels (including for both business and leisure/tourism). I first started writing in 2005, and completed writing a long introduction — but I suffered a setback when my laptop was burgled in KL the next year. I began writing again in 2013 and the lost introduction metamorphosed into a shorter prologue and a long first chapter. I sent the prologue to David Davidar in September 2013 and he offered me a contract six hours later — and the book took over my life for the next three years. I wrote at my desk, during the evenings after work, and especially on business trips. The solitude of a hotel room or of a flight seat proved particularly conducive to writing.

Q. How was the process of writing of this book?

A. I have been gathering material for the past 20 years. I wanted to understand why it is that the parts of Asia that were ruled by Japan are precisely the parts that are most prosperous and the parts ruled by Britain the longest are the poorest. I was also struck by the fact that almost every Indian family in Singapore and Malaysia had someone who had joined the Indian National Army (INA) or Indian Independence League (IIL) and they all swore by Netaji 50 years later. I have been studying our independence movement since I was 12 years old and was struck by the long periods (1922-29, 1933-37, 1943-45) when nothing seemed to be happening with the mainstream Gandhi movement. Examining it properly led me to the inevitable conclusion that it was the INA that finally defeated the British - not at war (since they were defeated at Kohima and Imphal after the victory at Moirang) but by undermining the implicit loyalty of the British Indian armed forces, which were the basis of the British imperium. In 1919, the British had responded to the Ghadarites by imposing the Rowlatt Act; in January 1946, the British were left cowering by the national upsurge that followed the INA trials and they acquitted Sahgal-Dhillon-Shahnawaz for fear of mutiny. A mutiny did nonetheless break out over the next six weeks, with 5200 Air Force personnel and 78 of the 88 ships of the Royal Indian Navy mutinying. Attlee was forced to announce that he would send three of his senior most colleagues to negotiate India's freedom. Our Independence Day should be 19th February (1946), and our first Prime Minister was Subhas Bose. It was Bose who created the Provisional Government of Free India on Oct 21, 1943. This statehood was recognised by nine countries and acknowledged as the legitimate government of an enslaved population by Bhulabhai Desai during the INA trials.

Q. INA formed a great part of your book. Could you please tell us how you approached your sources in South East Asia?

A. Singapore and Malaysia were Netaji’s Karmabhumi (area of work). Whether at the Ramakrishna Mission, or at the cricket ground, or in interactions with common people, I became aware that no Indian family in the region was untouched by his influence; at least one member had joined either the INA or the IIL. I would ask every Indian family I met about their link to the INA and the stories poured out.

Q. Your work appears to be a unique way to tell the Asian story. How did you approach this unique angle?

A. Most of the books I read were written by Europeans (especially British) and Americans. However, I looked at everything they wrote from an Asian perspective and that is hopefully reflected in my book. For instance, Kanhoji Angre and the Bugis sailors are referred to as pirates by European writers. But of course they were admirals of the incumbent rulers of India and the East Indies. I hope my book serves as a starting point for more histories from an Asian perspective.

Q. Your book has given a different perspective to the world wars. Please elaborate.

A. World War I was largely fought among the European powers and the late intervention of the US tilted the scales in favour of Britain and her allies. Indian troops were heavily involved (mainly in the West Asian theatres) but they were fighting on behalf of the British as part of a European Civil War, which arguably didn’t end with the precarious peace of Versailles and extended into the second European Civil War. The second war was an even more climactic and can be called the Great Asian War between Japan and the US, which intervened, after all of Asia east of India had been liberated by Japan.

Q. This book has dealt extensively with non-Gandhian Indian freedom movement. Your views.

A. The myth that ahimsa brought us independence has been perpetuated by both the Congress and the British, because the myth flatters them both. The reality is that Britain fought tooth and nail to hold India, using every trick in the ‘divide and rule’ book. The Quit India Movement was crushed militarily and the Congress lay moribund for the next five years. But after the INA trials, there was a patriotic upsurge that spread to the soldiers, sailors and airmen of the British Indian armed forces which eventually led to a rebellion that made Britain concede to the demand of Indian independence.