How not to write
an Autobiography or a Memoir
“ Great Kings always recorded the events of
their reigns, some writing themselves with their natural gifts, but most
entrusting the writing to historians and
writers so that these compositions would remain as a memorial on the pages of
passing time.”
These lines are ybShah Shuja of the early
19th century in his memoirs Waqi'at-i- Shah Shuja and quoted by William Dalrymple in The Return of a King. Witnessing the
cacophony on the TV channels about Natwar Singh’s latest book and the one by
Sanjay Barua a few months earlier, Shah Shuja’s comments on recording the past
to serve as memorials in the future are a refreshing reminder of veracity that
is the cornerstone of all historical documents.
I have read parts of Natwar Singh’s latest
book, his autobiography- One Life is not
Enough and Sanjay Barua’s book The Accidental Prime Minister - The Making
and Unmaking of Manmohan Singh- in particular the provocatively spicy extracts
in them. Even a cursory glance at the
two books will reveal interesting similarities in respect of the two authors
who no longer wield the power that they once enjoyed. Sanjay Barua was the
media adviser to the former Prime Minister ManMohan Singh during his first
innings as PM(2004-8) and Natwar Singh, the former Foreign Minister was a close confidante of the Gandhi family
since Indira Gandhi’s days. Thus the two books respectively claim to be an insider’s
account providing a ringside view of the inner politics of the Congress and its
present leaders Sonia Gandhi and ManMohan Singh. Both the books have been published –one just
before the elections in April and the other, two months post the elections in
August. This period between April and August 2014 had prophesied and confirmed the
erosion of Congress party resulting in its abysmal defeat in the general
elections held in May. It seems as though these two tell-all books have hit the
bookstands to anticipate and confirm the installation of a Congress mukht
Bharat and to coincide with a change of guard at the centre. The two authors had thus waited for certitude
about the fall of the Congress lest their criticism should rebound on them in
case of a freak return of Congress to power. Both have criticizd the Sonia-ManMohan
equation.
For the BJP and the media, the two books were
god sent as the first one gave the needed ammunition to bomb out the Congress
while the second one filled the Newshour broadcasts to debate about the
Congress high command in the absence of any sensational breaking news from the Government. Ever since
Modi has come to power, there is hardly any leaking news as Prime Minister Modi seems now to
have no use for the media that had earlier helped him to the PM’s chair. The
news channels today debate more about
Rahul( and his pappuism, his siesta in the parliament seat, his sudden waking
up and his attempt at tilting the windmills to showcase his leadership
qualities as directed by his mother).
The two books are of the airport reading genre that you browse through while waiting at the
airport lounge and they have come in
handy for the prime time television debates starved of any other sensational
news.
This brings us to the vital question: whose
interests do these two books serve? Why has there been such a hullaballoo over
these two books? Narwar calls his book an
autobiography while Barua calls his a memoir. What is a memoir? Memoir is a collection of reminiscences about a
period, series of
events, etc, written
from personal experience.
There is a slight difference between memoirs and memories- memories refer to
what one remembers about one’s past. As Barua’s book is about ManMohan Singh, the question arises whether it can claim the
status of a memoir because memoir should
only be about his personal experience and not that of ManMohan Singh. He talks
about the relationship between Sonia Gandhi and ManMohan Singh and describes it
as between a de facto ruler and a de jure sub-serve. Whatever he has written is
just his surmise, his interpretation as he could not have been privy to their
talks and meetings. The most important fact about 2004-8 is that this
relationship between the PM and the party President did not set the Yamuna on
fire at that time . Those four years were placid years, uneventful, undisturbed
by any major disorder or turbulence. Except for the Indo-US nuclear deal,
nothing of any significance happened. So
for Barua to reminisce about this period and write about the making or unmaking
of ManMohan Singh and call it his memoir is far-fetched. The book is an
exercise carried by a languid mind, feeding on its memories. Barua is not a historian and his book is not
a chronicle. It is his interpretation of
the time that he was with the PM and even if his interpretation of a
master-chela is averred, there has not been any cataclysmic occurrence during
this period to make it to history books. The book seems to be memories and what
he remembers of his four years( too short an interregnum in the history of a
nation) does not lend itself to remain a memorial on the pages of a passing
time.
Natwar’s
book is true to his claim- it is his autobiography. It details the historical
events from the 1980s to the UPA regime that came to an end in the May
elections. Like Barua, he has also been an insider- this time with exclusive
access to the Gandhi family and not to that extent with the PM. He also writes about the Manmohan
Singh-Sonia equation in government. After nearly 35 years as a loyal Congress
party worker he resigned from the party after he was forced to resign for his
involvement in the oil-for food scam in
2005. It has taken nine years for him to write a book which is grabbing
eyeballs for its vitriolic attack on Sonia Gandhi with whom he was close to,
after the assassinations of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. He seemed to nurse
grievance against Sonia Gandhi for his dismissal and the autobiography after a
nine year hiatus has aimed at ‘exposing’ the Gandhi family whose personal and
party issues he was privy to.
It is interesting that the book has been published at a time when
the Congress party has been routed in the elections. No one even is so naïve to
gloss over the timing and the strategy behind its timely release. Even the usually reticent former PM, ManMohan
Singh has criticized Natwar Singh’s cheap tactic of misusing private
conversations for capital gains. A book reviewer has condemned all the hype
surrounding this book of half truths quoting Aesop, the ancient Greek fabulist:
"Every truth has two sides; it is well to look at both, before we commit
ourselves to either." Even as an
autobiography it is more a creative half truth as his personal anger and
animosity have coloured his writings. An
autobiographical writer must be clear in his mind as to what he wants to tell
his readers. What are his goals and future plans? Natwar’s future plan is to
write a sequel on the same lines of hard hitting the Gandhi family. There seems
to be no clarity as to what he wants his readers to learn from him except his
vitriolic remarks against Sonia Gandhi that makes sensational reading.
I hold no brief for Sonia or for any member of the Gandhi family.
But the kind of noise we have been
subjected to over these two books that read like pulp fiction has made me question as to where lies the value of these two books? The books cannot and
will not serve historians chronicling the events post Rajiv’s assassination as
they are written as personal accounts rather than researched historical records.
History is not just a recording of factual events; it includes explanation or
commentary on these events. The commentaries in these two books are about
individuals rather upon events of historical importance.
Natwar and Barua have given expression to personal anger and
spite. They are memories from a vengeful mind and seem more to please the new
regime that had ousted that of the earlier Sonia-ManMohan combine. The media
has elevated the two books to the status of a literary classic- as an
Autobiography and a Memoir, but in truth, they exemplify what do not make these
literary genres.
No comments:
Post a Comment