Emmauel Le Roy Ladurie (1929 - 2023) An Assessment and a Tribute

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

Dr Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie died in Paris at the age  of 94 a long life filled with admirable contribution to medieval history and a stalwart of the "Annales" School of French Historiography. Of course the fact that his father served as a Minister of Agriculture under the Vichy regime in no way stands in the way of international recognition for his work. In fact as I have argued elsewhere it is about time to reassess the ideology of "collective guilt" imposed by Charles de Gaulle after his "Victory: march with the Allies in 1945. But this fact serves to underscore the complex relationship between the French Historical Establishment and the post "Liberation" French State. 

Dr Le Roy Ladurie

  Ladurie is a rock star among             Historians and his stellar reputation   rests on his Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error a study in which he used  the Inquisitorial Records to uncover the   pattern of culture and popular belief ina small mountainous village of just 250 peasants who came under the gaze of the Roman Catholic Church due to their apparent interest in the Cathars, a Christian movement that was declared heretical by the Catholic Church. Marriage patterns, familial ties, land control and ownership and relationship with the Clergy and its "errors" then as now are scandalous, Though published in 1978 this book still remains a classic study in what the French call mentalite`. 

This particular book has had a very wide impact and it has reshaped the field of agrarian and medieval history in significant ways. This was the first major work that used Inquisitorial Records to probe deeper questions of faith and religion in a medieval peasant society. As many scholars since have pointed out, the French peasants were usually unlettered and the records may at best reflect the scribes' perception. Here were have what Ranajit Guha in his classic paper, "The prose of Counter Insurgency" called History against the grain. Le Roy Ladurie followed this book with one of the classic statements on Historiography, The Territory of the Historian. Unfortunately this book remains almost undiscovered by students of medieval History. Another early book that must be mentioned is Times of Feast, Times of Famine a book in which he used the records of grape harvest to make a study of climate chamge and variation in medieval Europe. 

In 1580 a Carnival in Romans turned into a violent riot in which the leading citizens of the city of Romans attacked and killed craftsmen who were generally adherents of the Protestant faith. This event took place eight years after the 1572 Hugenots Massacre on St Bartholomew Day. The ferocity and the intense scale of the violence unleashed was unprecedented and the Historian puts in in the context of economic, cultural and social changes that were sweeping through France. 

This book is a study of the Platter Family which transitioned from sheep rearing to High social status profession within a single generation. Based on Family Records preserved in the Archives at Montpellier this work is an important contribution to the social history of early modern France. And the Peasants of Languedoc is a classic work of medieval agrarian history. 

One question that needs to be asked as Historians grapple with the methodological sophistication and grandiose sweep of Annales is the, apparent uniqueness of the French Method of History. Most of the world and certainly most of the non white societies lack historical documentation of depth and range that we see in France and other white states. The lack of resources itself should alert Historians to the fact that it is is not possible to replicate the Annales in other countries, certainly not in India. Second why do the Annales School of Historians stay away from Modern History. Is it because in the medieval period France was undefeated and was the proud centre of the European civilization.

The death of this great Historian is a loss and we mourn his death.

 

India's Experiment with Democracy: The Life of a Nation Through Its Elections: A Review

A look at the world of politics, statecraft, diplomacy and books

India's Experiment with Democracy: The Life of a Nation Through its Elections

S Y Quraishi, IAS (retd)

New Delhi: Harper Collins 2023

Shri S Y Quraishi I A S (retd) has written a hastily written book on Indian Elections in which all the talking points of George Soros and his Merry Men who scream about India being a flawed "democracy" in which "back sliding" of norms has become endemic are sprinkled in ample measure all through this badly written and sloppily edited book. We expect some quality from men who hold high Constitutional Office and I am sorely disappointed having perused the turgid pages hoping for insight and elucidation. And both were not forthcoming, unfortunately.

As the Chief Election Commissioner during the Man Mohan Singh regime, Shri S Y Quraishi for reasons that are quite obscure fails to highlight the two most important dangers faced by Indian Democracy: Corruption and Dynastic Politics. His tortured attempt to gloss over the conviction of Rahul Gandhi for his conviction in a criminal case of defamation shows bias in favor of the Congress and his insinuation that the case was instigated as vendetta makes one wonder about the quality of his judgement. He cites the Lily George judgement and is certainly aware of the consequences that stem from conviction. The purchase of criminals over Indian politics is hinted throughout the book but there is studied silence on Shahabuddin and Atiq Ahmed, the two most egregious instances of criminals masquerading as leaders. Giving more powers to the Election Commission of India to disqualify candidates is hardly a solution as this provision is likely to be used selectively on ideological grounds. Identity politics is reprehensible in whatever form it takes.

Apart from overweening bias, the book is flawed in that it takes a standard instrumental line when it comes to Democracy, Elections and Politics. The Indian Constitution does not mention Political Parties or their role in the affairs of the State and hence we can raise the question is the multi party democracy that flourishes in India alien to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. If political parties are not mentioned then it logically follows that defection cannot be regarded as an offence as the Constitution does not recognise the existence of political factions. This point is not addressed by Shri Quraishi though one of his predecessors Shri Navin Chawla thought it prudent to let the cat among the pigeons. Political Parties get legal status only through the enabling legislation, Representation of Peoples' Act. The founders of the Indian Constitution were perhaps aware of the ill of party democracy and hence avoided even according political parties constitutional recognition. 

The  Prime Minister has spoken of One Nation one Election as a solution to the constant election fever that grips the country. The Media has the distracting habit of reading election results as though state elections are referenda on the Central Government. This vital debate is not addressed except in a perfunctory casual manner. He rightly rejects NRI voting right but seems to bend towards allowing migrant voters the right to vote. Elections is India are in a federal context and the individual state must remain the locus of elections. On the Model Code of Conduct Shri Quraishi seems to think that giving it statutory powers will enable the Commission to be more effective. I think this will only lead to more litigation on the implementation of the code. 

Shri Quraishi seems to give far too much importance to Political Parties. May be for the Election Commission of India they remain its prime clients. However, political parties with a few honourable exceptions, have failed to maintain inter party democracy, failed to submit their election accounts to the Commission, failed to nominate candidates with good track record, and most have circumvented democracy by openly embracing dynastic fascism as the norm. Regional political parties are particularly prone to this tendency. And he has also failed to investigate the pernicious and corrosive practice of distributing money to the electorate. The Tirimangalam By election brought this before the Nation. And the author is discreetly silent on the huge sums of money seized during Elections. In Tamil Nadu, container lorries stuffed with currency notes were seized and till this day we do not know how the Election Commission of India disposed off the case. And the example of the Sivagangai Parliamentary Election result is still a lingering sore. Quraishi ignored all substantial issues dealing with money and crime in Indian elections. 

There is a great deal of repetition in the book. Passages are repeated verbatim and this only shows bad editing and poor writing and drafting. On page 218 and pg 222 we find the same sentence repeated dealing with corrupt practices. We find such instances throughout the book. It seems this hastily written book is designed to reinforce the George Soros and its affiliate Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) propaganda against India. India will remain a democracy in spite of the  poison emanating from white societies and their ideological partners and sepoys. 

Why should India and its former Election Commission have a  view on the elections in USA.  On pg 288 he write that President "Trump sought to cancel the 2020 election results an declare himself the victor". This is absolute nonsense. Trump sought to raise questions about the legal validity of the elections and nothing more. We do not expect a functionary of the Election Commission to accept uncritically the talking points from Washington Post and New York Times. His laboured effort to defend Muslim social practices as followed by Taliban in Afghanistan is not worth dealing with as a religion is judged not by what it preaches but what it practices. In any case that is an exercise in futility as far as the indigenous people of India are concerned.

This is a bad book. Written in a style that is full of North Block officialise and we are left with the wisdom that the Chief Election Commissioner ranks higher in the pecking order as seen in the Warrant of Precedence compared to a Principal Secretary. Hierarchy once again.