Historian Ramachandra Guha, 58, is an eminent chronicler of contemporary India. His books include a noted work of environmental history (The Unquiet Woods, 1989), an award-winning social history of sport (A Corner of a Foreign Field, 2002) and an acclaimed work of contemporary history (India after Gandhi, 2007). He is a recipient of the R K Narayan Prize, the Sahitya Akademi Award, and the Padma Bhushan. In 2014 he was awarded an honorary doctorate in the humanities by Yale University. In 2015 he won the Fukuoka Prize for contributions to Asian culture and scholarship.

Guha&’s latest book, Democrats and Dissenters, covers a wide range of themes, from the varying national projects of India&’s neighbours to political debates within India, from the responsibilities of writers to the complex relationship between democracy and violence. In an interview, he shares his views and perspective on some such issues. Excerpts:

Q: A decade ago you characterised India as a “50-50 democracy”. As a historian and chronicler of contemporary India, how would you revisit that characterisation now?

A: I would still place (India) in the 50-50 realm broadly. I think what happens in a country like India is that we progress in some spheres and regress in others. If you look at the last 10 years, there is greater freedom in some areas. More women are allowed to choose their romantic or marriage partners now than they were earlier, there is more freedom to change your jobs and so on. At the same time, some of our public institutions are declining, our health facilities are arguably declining and there are more curbs on freedom of expression. So we are still an imperfect and flawed democracy.

Q: In your latest book, Democrats and Dissenters, you seek to contrast the democratic principles of Jawaharlal Nehru and “an Indian who had left formal party politics but who was intensely political nonetheless”, Jayaprakash Narayan. What, in your view, is the significance of  the “Nehru-Narayan exchange” for Indian democracy now?

A: The significance is multiple. The most important significance is that it&’s a debate about principles, not about personalities. There is no abuse, name-calling, no trolling. Two people are disagreeing without either side disrespecting the other. This trend is lost in India today. If I am disagreeing with you, I must be a Congress agent or Sanghi or whatever! The second thing is that it&’s a debate among two serving politicians, not among scholars. It tells you something about our political leadership then. Could you have a debate of such subtlety between someone in the BJP and someone in the Congress today? Unlikely. JP talks about a major national party with no opposition. That is what the Congress was then, but do we see that is what the BJP is now! And BJP today has contempt even for intellectuals like me, who criticise it, just like Nehru had contempt for intellectuals who criticised him. The BJP today is in a similar situation as the Congress was in the 1950s.

Q: In a lengthy chapter on Pakistan in this book, you say “one should not mock (Pakistan) too much”, warning of a similar characterisation of India in Hindutva terms “if Bhartiya Janata Party is in power long enough”. Are you fearful of a Hindu Pakistan sort of model in India?

A: I think within the BJP there is a fight with the RSS. If the RSS increases its influence on the BJP, if the BJP is in power for next 20-25 years, I don’t think we will turn into a Hindu Pakistan but we will go in the direction. Sections within the BJP and the Sangh Parivar want to make us a Hindu Pakistan. If India is anything it is not Hindu Pakistan but that worry remains.

Q: What is your take on the state of democracy and dissent in our country under the Narendra Modi dispensation?

A: A democrat sometimes becomes a dissenter and dissent is the lifeblood of democracy as long as it is conducted non-violently. I do not want to single out a particular individual. I would just say that for the past 20-25 years, the space for open, reasoned and reflective debate is shrinking in India. There is debate on social media but that is mostly name-calling and trolling. I think 20-25 years ago, it was more vigorous, more subtle and it is important to recover that. All parties have contributed to it, the BJP is slightly worse than the Congress but the Congress was bad enough. This decline predates the current government.

Q: What do you make of the handling of the raging Kashmir crisis by the Modi government?

A: I think there is a lot of confusion about Kashmir. There is a lot of confusion about it in Pakistan also. The jihadis want azadi, you can’t have it; the Sanghis want full integration of Kashmir, that is also mistaken. I think one needs to assure the Kashmiris of autonomy and dignity and successive governments have not been able to do so.

Q: What makes you foresee “the lingering death” of the Congress party?

A: I think the Congress is now in terminal decline. It cannot become a national force again, that is how I see it. Their units in every state are breaking apart, Rahul Gandhi is totally uninspirational as a leader, even his own colleagues do not have respect for him. So I think the Congress is now virtually dead. That is why I have said Rs the “long life and lingering death of the Congress”.

Q: Why do you think, as you put it in your book, “there can be a credible conservative intellectual tradition in India only if it emerges outside the ecosystem of the Sangh Parivar”?

A: Because they are profoundly an anti-intellectual force. The Sangh Parivar does not believe that intellectuals make any contribution to society. If you look at wherever they have ruled Rs in Gujarat or Rajasthan or in Madhya Pradesh Rs they have this same attitude towards artists, scholars, writers and filmmakers. But we do need a conservative intellectual tradition. We need them and I hope they will emerge from outside the eco-system of the Sangh Parivar.