Charlie Rose

jigar  08/31/2008 02:47 AM Report

If this was the first interview of Mr. guha, I would have waved him off as someone who played too much with words. but he is like this and yet he is relevant. i've started to enjoy his interviews nowadays. he is also a part time cricket historian and that add to his appeal to me.

0ldm0nk  08/03/2008 04:51 PM Report

The author says india was never united before.

He belongs to the school which thinks british created india. Has he forgotten about Mauryan empire, Delhi Sultanate at its peak, Mughal Empire at its peak? Now these periods of unity were few and far between but every empire tried to extend its rule from coast to coast, from himalayas to the cape. Also, political unity may have been elusive but the idea of india as a cultural entity was always there.

Reema Sriganesh  05/07/2008 06:33 AM Report

I thought that the interview was really good. For one, Mr. Guha was very articulate; you agree with him or not, at least you won't be confused as to what he has to say. Secondly, Charlie Rose asked good questions and traversed the post independence political figures with the backdrop of the really long surviving ethos of India.

Mr. Guha, however, was a little too swift to be able to nail him down on either side of the argument. He seemed to agree and disagree, all at the same time. I think this might have to do with his career in academia and the political correctness that is not-so-conspicuously mandated in that environment. But I thought that his thoughts were very helpful for me to get another perspective on the leaders of my own country. I don't quite agree, still, with his litany of Nehru's qualities in sustaining post-independence India. I continue to believe that Nehru was a somewhat spineless leader who tried his best to avoid fated but warranted confrontations - be that in settling the issue of disharmony between Hindus and Muslims - or in fighting the war-mongering Chinese. In this, I believe that the sins of Nehru are visiting upon his (seven) generations (and not the other way around, like Mr. Guha put it)...

desidude  01/10/2008 09:06 PM Report

Nirmal John,

2 points

Islam is much more voilent than christianity.

One can argue that all non muslims(hindus,buddhist,jains) accepted a subservient status beneath british to get away from being under muslims.

Nirmal John  01/06/2008 02:53 AM Report

India is not built by constitution. Its formed by over centuries after centuries through cvilization. Many hisorians are accepted today. Indian contienet is highly homogeneous and peoples are moving constantly from one region to another for various reasons such as businees or spritual.

If Ram Guha keep saying that constitution only ties India. If so, just froming consitution is not enough and need to enforce, right. To enforce constitution, I would like to know from him how many police stations are their?.

It is stupid to say that Hindu extremism. In Hindu religion, there is no extremism. Because Hindu religion never said that my religious text is unalterable. Its evolved as naturally as with civilization.

Around 1940, university of chicago conducted a study about which religion is a fundamentalist religion. They concluded that chrstain and isalm is a fundamentalist religion. Because their text is so unalterable.

Look the history, you come to know the number of deaths happened based on only these two religions.

Sriram Venkatramani  01/05/2008 05:12 AM Report

I agree with "desi dude" to a limited extent where this interview is concerned.

Rahul applies a sadly not so common tactic to discredit the 'opposing' viewpoint by suggesting they are not Indian enough but perhaps Non Indians who don't grasp India or worse an ABCD(American born confused Desi).

Its immaterial to me if the "desi" guy appended "dude" as his handle.

I do see the point he/she is making.

and sadly Rahul is not making the point.

I think this interview belongs for grammar school audience, b/c nothing worth substance was discussed.

The author chronicled chipko, there was no mention of that....

The interview if it was offered in a university would be introduction to India for those who don't know there was a country called India

I agree with the P.Carter Snodgrass MD that the author sounded hilarious in a cold night.

desidude  01/04/2008 08:25 PM Report

Well Rahuls pays attention to my choice of moniker.

I'll do the same about Rahul, perhaps he feels that he feels that he is rahul gandhi or the son of buddha and fails miserably at both.

Rahul never cites anything specific from the interview and labels them "skillfully abstract".

Guha was anything but succinct and deliberately vague, and when charlie tries to get him to be exact about US strategic relations the man has a hissy fit and in the very next breath contradicts himself.

He never cited anything about what i wrote either.

Perhaps its his lame attempt at being "opinionated".

His usage reflects being un "opinionated" as a good thing for an intellectual.

desidude  01/03/2008 11:20 PM Report

This dude is the the second worst dumbass from india. One being Arundhati Roy.

Notice that when charlie rose mentions startegic, the man had a hysteric fit throwing nonsense about thats not the way to look at things and then gave glowing praise to clintons "reversal" of indian pakistan role... Thats confused logic.

Rahul  01/02/2008 10:55 PM Report

I think the comments from 'desidude' above are unwarranted. In fact the name 'desidude' (a combination of two distinct words: desi i.e. Indian and, of course, 'dude') is a reflection of their own confusion about their identity as being neither American nor Indian; perhaps just a lame attempt at being both and failing at it.

I found the interview interesting, even though Mr Guha did sound a bit opinionated at times. In a short time, Mr Rose and Mr Guha covered a lot of historical ground, and only because Mr Guha was able to skillfully abstract key influences and events from Indian history and present them succinctly in his view of the Indian world. While I did not agree with Mr Guha's at all times, I did find his hypotheses plausible. 4 Stars overall.

P. Carter Snodgrass, M,D.  01/01/2008 12:27 AM Report

The author was hilarious; it is rare for Mr. Rose to smile and laugh so spontaneously. This program a delight on a cold West Texas New Year's Night. Happy New Year - 2008

PCS, mdmba