Walter Russell Crocker: Australian Diplomat And Newly-Discovered Icon Of 'North-South Divide'

Following the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) recent triumph in the Hindi-speaking states on 3 December, 2023, a narrative of a north-south political divide has emerged.

Senthilkumar made his comment on 5 December. A day earlier, however, historian Ramachandra Guha waded into the same debate. He quoted a Western authority who also happened to be a Nehru-admirer and the third High Commissioner to India from Australia—Walter Russell Crocker (1902-2002).

Crocker was a high-ranking official of the British Colonial Services who first served in Nigeria and was later posted as High Commissioner in independent India.

Crocker serves as a notable example, illustrating the evolution of colonial thought, even as countries began to gain independence from colonialism. Remarkably, this shift in thought occurred while retaining colonial values.

Prof. Kama Maclean, Historian of South Asian and World History at the University of New South Wales, makes the following observation with respect to this work of Crocker:

During the Bengal Famine as well as the ‘Quit India’ Movement Crocker was very much in India. In fact, during the famine he was a part of the British war machinery that was directly overseeing operations in Bengal.

In 1946, he viewed with disdain the massive Indian support for INA soldiers during their trial and observed that ‘nationalism was rampant and it had become insane’.

Now let us come to the passage that Guha has quoted in his tweet. There is reason to believe that Crocker was not just an admirer of southern India but very specifically of southern Indian Brahmin culture. So when he refers to 'South Indian' he is likely referring to Brahmins of southern India.

The introductory pages of the book leading to the passage quoted by Guha should clarify this:

It is through these views of Crocker that one has to arrive at the quote on southern India that Guha quoted in his tweet.

But the superiority that Crocker talks about was a relative advantage accruing to pre-Dravidianist southern India. This was due to the perception that compared to other regions of the country, the south had contributed lesser to the freedom movement. In fact, Guha could have done well to quote Dr Ambedkar who had pointed out such a divide between northern and southern India, in his treatise on linguistic states.

Southern India did not have a collective uprising like in the north in 1857. The south of India produced illustrious freedom fighters no doubt. But northern India suffered more under colonialism. That is a historical fact. Southern India is prosperous because the north paid a heavy price. In the final analysis, northern India sacrificed more for India's freedom, and that is a fact for which, this writer, as a proud Indian from the south, thanks the north.

Then the question: why did a scholar like Guha tweet a passage that invokes the alleged disunity between northern and southern India?

Nehru, whatever his faults and shortcomings, entirely agreed upon the indivisibility and cultural unity of India, but neo-Nehruvianism doesn't.

If only Guha would have turned to the very next page of Crocker's book, he would have found this passage there:

After Nehru, as Indira Gandhi leaned towards Dravidian and Communist elements, it's worth noting the significant role the South played in forging a democratic alternative to the Indira-Congress hegemon. Congress(O) under Kamaraj, Swatantra Party under Rajaji, and Jan Sangh formed a grand alliance that was both pan-Indian and aligned with the foundational ethics and civilizational wisdom of Bharat. This alliance, later instrumental in saving India during the dark days of Emergency, is a legacy continued by Modi in ways more than one.

Neo-Nehruvianism, distinct from the ideas of Nehru but with some clear connections employs a colonial-style civilizational scale. Here, disdain for Indian culture and alignment with colonial, Protestant-like ethics are seen as markers of civilization. Just as imperialism benefited England economically, Neo-Nehruvianism, in terms of power dynamics, benefits a specific dynasty. In this worldview, the Nehru-Gandhis are considered essential for India's identity and those opposing them are viewed as less civilized.

However, Nehru is not entirely blameless. Crocker says that he heard a family member of Nehru talk with disdain about the 'tomfoolery of Hinduism' (p.30) and states that Motilal Nehru was 'contemptuous of religion in general and of Hinduism in particular.' (p.60) Later, Crocker provides a list of things Nehru was prejudiced against: '—Maharajas, Portugal, Money-lenders, certain American ways, Hinduism, the whites in Africa ... ' (p.138)

In a way, the fulminations of Dravidianists are less dangerous only because they are obvious. The perspective of Guha is more concerning because in that case a scholarly facade conceals what the DMK MP said openly in Parliament.