![]() How To Judge A BiographyT.C.A. Srinivasa Raghavan HALF LION: HOW P.V. NARASIMHA RAO TRANSFORMED INDIA By Vinay Sitapati Penguin Viking, New Delhi, 2016, pp. 391, Rs. 700.00 VOLUME XL NUMBER 9 September 2016 How do you judge a good biography,
especially in a country where the
tradition of writing them is virtually
nonexistent and where even the few that
do get written, tend to be hagiographies? It
is hard to say but Vinay Sitapati’s biography
of P.V. Narasimha Rao, a former Prime Minister
of India, fulfils the five criteria that could
be applied, namely, length, style, research,
new information and novel interpretation.
Last year, Daman Singh, Manmohan
Singh’s daughter wrote her father’s biography
but it failed on three of the above five
counts: research, new information and novel
interpretation. It was an interesting read but
added little to what was not already known.
In contrast, Sitapati who is a journalist,
lawyer, academic and Ph.D candidate, provides
a huge amount of hitherto unknown
detail, such as it was Rajiv Gandhi’s friend,
Satish Sharma, to whom Rao first turned for
advice when he heard he might become the
next President of the Congress after Rajiv’s
assassination and therefore, electorate willing,
Prime Minister.
Sitapati’s style, however, is a bit confusing
as well. He writes like a journalist but
footnotes like an academic. He cites sources
in the text as well as in the notes and references
at the back—all 75 pages of them. He
keeps you riveted but disappoints often with
his tentativeness.
In short, it is an excellent biography
which falls short of being a comprehensive
and definitive one, like, say S. Gopal’s of
Nehru. Rao, like Nehru had spent 30 years
in the service of the Congress; but he had
only five as Prime Minister unlike Nehru
who had 17.
But like Gopal, Sitapati also presents Rao
in the best possible light, except that unlike
Nehru, politics isn’t perhaps the best way of
doing that. Nehru was an idealist; Rao was a
cynic. Sitapati doesn’t flinch from portraying
Rao as one but in doing so, he fails in his
primary task of portraying Rao as a man who
has been wronged by his Party.
But Party is not the same thing as country
because, except for Congressmen and
women speaking for the record, there is
hardly an educated person who doesn’t acknowledge
Rao’s contributions to India, the
greatest being the economic reforms that he set in motion in 1991. The Congress Party,
on the other hand, prefers to dwell on that
great blemish in ... Table of Contents >> |