
Why Estonian writer Jan Kross's historical fiction is worth reading in India today
To Eastern readers of European history the Baltic states seem like tiny, almost invisible threads in the larger historical and intellectual tapestry of that continent. This is because their notion of Europe is overwhelmingly of big powers such as France and Germany, with Russia – because of its influence and size – as the only 'eastern' country in it. The histories of the smaller states, though, show that they have obstinately refused to be pushed into the backwaters, becoming nations in their own right. The struggles of Estonia, for instance, show an indigenous people subjugated at different times by Germans, Danes, Swedes, and Russians, making the whole swathe of Livonia (as it was once called) almost a playground for colonial powers killing each other in an internecine effort to enslave Estonians. The writers of the Baltic region, mostly unfamiliar to readers in Asia, have recorded the histories of such struggles in enthralling epics, powerful poetry, and unputdownable novels. Without doubt one of their greatest poet-writers is Jaan Kross (1920–2007), whose epic trilogy Between Three Plagues has recently been magnificently translated into English by Merike Lepasaar Beecher.
Kross's work is a torrent of stories that convey cultural traditions which pre-dated, resisted, and ultimately refused integration into hegemonic European moulds. He wrote many of his novels when Estonia was part of the Soviet Union, and his own life was fashioned by the tyranny of that occupation. Having survived the Nazis over the early 1940s, he was deported to Russian labour camps in 1946 and only returned to Estonia's capital, Tallinn, in 1954. So his stories of totalitarian regimes and colonial oppression were close to the skin of his own experiences. After his return from incarceration, he wrote historical novels, using the past as a vehicle to communicate its continuity as contemporary reality. The shadow of some oppressive regime or the other was never really absent from Kross' life, save for his last fifteen years or so.
In India, this kind of gloomy shadow continues to grow at an alarming pace. We have, in fact, reached a point where the fear of action against us and our institutions has forced many of us to self-censor our writings and public interventions. What has just happened to Ali Khan Mahmudabad will deepen that fear. Yet, even while Kross may not have used his pen in the way that Ali has used his Facebook page, he would surely have applauded his courage in communicating his heartfelt concerns about contemporary reality. The epic trilogy Between Three Plagues.
If Kross is one of the greatest novelists of the 20th century, his most widely read work is The Czar's Madman, which appeared in 1978. It has been translated from Estonian into many languages and first appeared in English in 1992. Set in his native Estonia, the novel interweaves its history with, on the one hand, that of Tsarist Russia of which it was a part, and on the other with Western Europe, where the French Revolution had resulted in movements and personalities pitted against many varieties of social tyranny. Kross' hero in this novel, Timotheus von Bock (called Timo), is one such personality, an eccentrically modern nobleman keen on transforming his country estate, and beyond that his region, into an egalitarian, enlightened space. Timo's valiant struggle to prove himself a model of the ideal of equality, both domestically and politically, is a story told by his brother-in-law Jakob Mattick, whose narration takes the form of a journal in which history and literature are blurred. Sprinkled through the journal are untranslated German, Latin, and French words and phrases, consolidating the impression of a fictional idiom in which the past and present are made to mingle.
Timo seeks to transcend social barriers by marrying a peasant girl, Eeva. But he also wants her transformed socially upwards, to which end he has her educated via an internship with a scholarly cleric to acquire 'good manners, foreign languages and book learning'. Notwithstanding the scepticism with which his marriage is greeted by his aristocratic peers as well as her peasant family, it is a relationship that Timo sees as one of equals cemented by the sharing of books, music, and ideas. He asks her, for instance, to go to the university library and get Thomas More's Utopia – but the German edition, so that she too is able to read it. The 'peasant question' figures also go beyond just educating and marrying a peasant girl. Trips to Tartu involve evening congregations of aristocrats and literati, and the condition of peasants in Livonia dominates male conversations. During one such conversation, Timo turns the light inwards and points to how the most terrible things have been done to peasants, even by those gathered. The argument is Tolstoyan and biblical: 'We are, in corpore , grinding Christ's face into the dirt every day, every moment every minute. By what are we doing to our peasantry …'
And that is not all; far from it, in fact. As a highly decorated army officer and personal friend of Tsar Alexander I – who has asked Timo to distinguish himself from the sycophants at court by being unflinchingly honest – Timo takes the monarch at his word and writes a furious critique of the horrors of the tsar's rule. He then sends his tract to the tsar. Timo's tract, worded with a candour unheard of when addressing a king, is in its impulse bitingly Voltairean, more demand than appeal. It argues the need for a constitutional monarchy, the replacement of imperial decrees with laws.
But the implementation of noble ideals involves having to confront difficult ground realities that resist change – as Timo discovers to his cost, both politically and domestically. His idealism estranges him radically from the tsar and his own son, and in less wrenching ways from his wife and brother-in-law who are often thrown by his insistent notions of what is socially just and virtuous, and all that must be done to make their world a less unequal place. His determination verges on obstinacy and makes him uncompromisingly courageous as well as flawed. His wife emerges from her humble origins to show herself in every way his equal, and by her Stoic endurance of his incarceration and the care she takes to rehabilitate him after it, his superior. The intelligence, the passion, and the energy with which the couple together face their impossible circumstances make the many larger social and political struggles in the novel seem tragically and devastatingly human.
The tale of hapless and heroic Estonians in the time of Russian occupation during the early 19th century could well serve as a 20th-century commentary on the occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union. But Kross tells his story by oscillating between the confidential and personal tone of his diarist-narrator on the one hand, and the incendiary-proclamatory rage of his impassioned revolutionary hero on the other. The technique works powerfully and may well be a reason for this novel – set in the romantically revolutionary age of Goethe and Beethoven and written in the age of Stalinist repression – to seem as much a part of those times as ours. Kross writes of the 'fate of a human being, and perhaps even the fate of the whole world (should that exist separately from human fate), all of it depends on small motions in space – on a stroke of the pen – a resounding word, a turn of the key, the swoosh of an axe blade, the flight of a bullet – ', the elliptical dashes of his long sentences inviting readers to insert their own experiences into the things left unsaid.
Closer home, the arrest of Ali Khan is one such experience in the life of Ashoka University, one which reveals what results from a 'small motion in space'. That is what makes this spectacular novel about life in and around one country estate in a little country prophetic and surprisingly relevant within a huge nation such as India. For, in our country, no less than in Estonia, the accretion of small moves by people in power can sweep aside the human rage against inequality and set aside the struggle of entire communities against oppressive regimes.
We're in luck to have a novel as good as this showing us where we may be headed.
Nayanjot Lahiri is Professor of History at Ashoka University. The views expressed here are the personal views of the author.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
NATO ministers to discuss defence spending hike ahead of key summit
BRUSSELS, - NATO defence ministers will gather in Brussels on Thursday to discuss how to meet Donald Trump's demand for significant increases in spending, less than three weeks ahead of a key summit of the alliance in The Hague. The U.S. president has said NATO allies should boost investment in defence to 5% of gross domestic product, up from the current target of 2%. Diplomats say the European allies understand that hiking defence expenditure is the price of ensuring a continued U.S. commitment to the continent's security and that keeping America on board means allowing Trump to be able to declare a win on his 5% demand during the summit, scheduled for June 24-25. "We have to go further and we have to go faster," NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told reporters on Wednesday. "A new defence investment plan will be at the heart of the NATO summit in The Hague," he added. In a bid to meet Trump's 5% goal, Rutte has proposed alliance members boost defence spending to 3.5% of GDP and commit a further 1.5% to broader security-related spending, Reuters has reported. But details of the new investment plan will likely continue to be negotiated until the very eve of the NATO summit. "We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible really to spend," German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said on Wednesday. Countries remain divided over the timeline for a new pledge. "There's not unlimited time," U.S. ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker told reporters on Wednesday. Rutte has proposed reaching the 5% by 2032 – a date that some eastern European states consider too distant but which some others see as too early and unrealistic given current spending and industrial production levels. A 2032 target is "definitely too late", Lithuanian Defence Minister Dovile Sakaliene said on Wednesday, arguing for a target of 2030 at the latest. There is also an ongoing debate over how to define "defence-related" spending, which might include spending on cybersecurity and certain types of infrastructure. "The aim is to find a definition that is precise enough to cover only real security-related investments, and at the same time broad enough to allow for national specifics," said one NATO diplomat.


Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
'We don't want them': What prompted Donald Trump's travel ban on 12 nations; Is a rollback on the table?
Donald Trump Six months into his presidency, US President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced a far-reaching travel ban, saying, "we don't want them." This travel ban, impacting a total of 19 countries, can majorly reshape immigration policy of the United States. It was put forth through a presidential proclamation, the proposed restrictions introduce a three-tiered system of escalating barriers targeting nationals from more than a dozen countries. The measure is among the most aggressive in modern US history regarding global mobility. It has the potential to impact millions of people seeking entry to the United States for purposes including work, study, tourism, and relocation. What is a travel ban? A travel ban is a government-imposed restriction that prohibits or limits entry to the United States for citizens of specific countries. These restrictions may include total visa suspensions or targeted limitations on certain visa categories. Trump's first executive order directed the State Department to identify nations where vetting procedures are inadequate, potentially justifying a full or partial suspension of entry for their nationals. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure Your Child's Future with Strong English Fluency Planet Spark Learn More Undo The current proclamation builds on that order and cites a recent attack by an Egyptian national in Colorado's Boulder as additional justification. What is a presidential proclamation? A presidential proclamation is a formal announcement by the President. While some proclamations are ceremonial, others --especially during national emergencies, can carry legal and policy weight. Unlike executive orders that direct federal agencies, proclamations often signal sweeping policy shifts. In this case, the White House said, 'The Proclamation fully restricts and limits the entry of nationals from 12 countries found to be deficient with regard to screening and vetting and determined to pose a very high risk to the United States.' Bans go into effect from Monday As per the White House's statement travel ban announced by Trump administration will go into effect from Monday. "The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted," Trump said in a video message from the Oval Office posted on X. "We don't want them." Countries under full restriction (As per statements released by White House) Afghanistan - "The Taliban, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, controls Afghanistan. Afghanistan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures." Myanmar ( Burma ) - "According to the Overstay Report , Burma had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 27.07 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 42.17 percent. Additionally, Burma has historically not cooperated with the United States to accept back their removable nationals." Chad - "According to the Overstay Report, Chad had a B‑1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 49.54 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 55.64 percent. According to the Fiscal Year 2022 Overstay Report, Chad had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 37.12 percent. The high visa overstay rate for 2022 and 2023 is unacceptable and indicates a blatant disregard for United States immigration laws." Republic of the Congo - "According to the Overstay Report, the Republic of the Congo had a B-1/B-2 visa overstay rate of 29.63 percent and an F, M, and J visa overstay rate of 35.14 percent." Equatorial Guinea - Recorded a 21.98% overstay rate for B1/B2 visas and 70.18% for student/exchange visas. Eritrea - "The United States questions the competence of the central authority for issuance of passports or civil documents in Eritrea. Criminal records are not available to the United States for Eritrean nationals." Haiti - "Hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden Administration. This influx harms American communities by creating acute risks of increased overstay rates, establishment of criminal networks, and other national security threats." Iran - "Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism . Iran regularly fails to cooperate with the United States Government in identifying security risks, is the source of significant terrorism around the world, and has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals." Libya - "There is no competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents in Libya. The historical terrorist presence within Libya's territory amplifies the risks posed by the entry into the United States of its nationals." Somalia - " Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures." Sudan - "Sudan lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures." Yemen - "Yemen lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures." Countries under partial restriction The proclamation also imposes partial restrictions on citizens from seven additional countries identified as posing elevated risks: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela Why were these countries chosen? The proclamation outlines various justifications for including these countries: Lack of document integrity & vetting systems: Nations like Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Venezuela are cited for lacking competent or cooperative authorities to issue credible documents or vet travellers. High visa overstay rates: Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Burundi, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Turkmenistan were flagged for significantly high rates of visa overstays in the US. Terrorist threats and state-sponsored terrorism: Countries such as Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Cuba, and others were included due to their ties to terrorism or designation as state sponsors of terrorism. Exemptions for Olympics, World Cups The travel ban will not apply to athletes participating in the 2026 FIFA World Cup, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, or the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, according to Trump's order.


Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Yogendra Yadav writes: When a nation's idea of itself is stolen, what follows must be more than recovery
How should you react when something you value is stolen? Once you overcome the initial bewilderment (Where is it?), curiosity (Who stole it? How?) and guilt (Was I careless?), you arrive at the all-important question: How do I reclaim it so as to not lose it again? That is the question I would like to take away from the thoughtful response ('Who stole my nationalism?', IE, May 31) to my article ('The nationalism we forgot', IE, May 27) by Suhas Palshikar — my colleague, co-author and friend for three decades. His disagreements are constructive, as our starting point is the same. Suhas bhai puts it better than I did: It's not just the backsliding of Indian nationalism, but the delegitimisation and resolute replacement by a phoney version based on the 'narrow, vicious, macho and exclusionary European duplication of nationalism'. Therefore, reclaiming Indian nationalism is arguably the most critical priority for political action today. Let me begin by accepting all the corrections that Suhas bhai suggests to my initial outline. Indeed, Indian nationalism was an audacious project, difficult to realise and even more difficult to sustain. Yes, the uniquely Indian version of 'belonging without othering' always had its communal rivals in the Hindu and Muslim versions that copied the European models of national belonging via the 'othering' of religious communities. Of course, we have not just forgotten our nationalism; it has been stolen by the RSS version of pseudo-nationalism. That leaves only one serious disagreement. Suhas bhai thinks that I exaggerate the role of the tiny English speaking and deracinated elite in squandering the rich legacy of Indian nationalism. I still believe that the ruling class is always tiny, yet its ideas become the ruling ideas with lasting consequences. But this is a dispute the two of us can continue over a cup of tea (with bakarwadi from Chitale Bandhu) in Pune. Let me focus on the more pressing question of the here and now: What is to be done? How do we regain Indian nationalism in a way that we do not lose it again? This is not a simple political question of how to take on the BJP. This is also not a simple ideological question of how to combat the RSS's Hindutva with our received liberal progressive ideology. This is a serious intellectual and cultural question. I suspect that critics of today's phoney nationalism underestimate how serious this intellectual challenge is. Let me list three uncomfortable questions that we need to address head-on before we begin the project of the recovery of Indian nationalism. First of all, what is India? Is this a cultural-civilisational entity or just a political unit with boundaries defined by accidents of history? The pseudo-nationalist version offers a narrow yet thick notion of Indianness, of Bharatvarsha, a Sanatan and Akhand Bharat, that may be rescued from 1,000 years of Muslim and British colonial history. The response of the progressive critics is to fall back upon a liberal yet thin version of Indianness, which views India only in modern, political and constitutional terms, as a political community of people brought together by accidents of history. The uncomfortable question that we need to ask is this: Is the modern Indian state a successor to the civilisation called India? If so, what are its defining cultural features? Answering this question, without falling into dominant majoritarian myths, was never easy. In a sense, Jawaharlal Nehru's The Discovery of India was an attempt to do exactly that. The task has got more difficult today after Partition and with deeper awareness of the multiple histories and geographies that the Indian state is heir to. Yet, this is a question we cannot evade any more. We need a thick yet liberal notion of Indianness, a notion that has cultural resonance with the people of India. Second, should we be proud of being Indian? Here again we confront two bad answers. The dominant answer is jingoistic, the political equivalent of football club loyalty. Every Indian must, at all times, be proud of everything Indian as it is our 'motherland'. This powerful sentiment then drums up all kinds of reasons for this pride: India as the vishwaguru, India as the mother of democracies, India as the fountain of ancient wisdom, and so on. The critics of this narrative of national pride demand good reasons for such an assertion. Accident of birth is no proof of excellence; if anything, this conflict of interest calls for extra care in judging our own country. They find it difficult to take pride in a country full of class inequality, caste oppression, gender injustice and what not. They respond with guilt, if not shame, about being an Indian. So, the difficult question is: Can we address the deep sense of cultural inferiority that Indians have inherited from their colonial past? Can we do so without inventing ridiculous lies about plastic surgery in ancient India? Can we do so without brushing under the carpet the ugly truths about our country, our society, our civilisation? Can we come up with ways of self-affirmation that inculcate pride without asserting superiority over others? Finally, what do we owe this entity called India? Here again, the dominant answer is simple and powerful, if totalitarian. In this version of nation-comes-first, we owe everything, unlimited and unquestioning loyalty, even our lives, to our country. This requires suppressing any competing demand from a lower or higher unit: From attachment to any region, religion or language or from considerations of internationalism etc. The critics of jingoistic nationalism are more circumspect about what and how much they owe to one of the many entities that demand our affection. They want a space to assert other identities, from regional to global. Faced with aggressive nationalism, their loyalty appears shallow. They look non-aligned and can be dubbed anti-national. So the challenge is: How do we define deep loyalty to the nation in a way that does not preclude other equally legitimate commitments? I suspect that the progressive and liberal critics of the RSS-BJP do not have good answers to this or the other two questions. In sum: Our challenge is to reimagine a deep and non-jingoistic nationalism, at once culturally rooted in the plural heritage of our civilisation and open to claiming the heritage of humankind. That is what the nationalism of our freedom struggle was. Yet we cannot simply go back to that nationalism now. As Suhas bhai reminds us, it was a rather precarious achievement in its own times. Besides, a lot of water and blood has flowed in the Ganga since then. So we have no option but to recreate, rearticulate and then regain the nationalism that we lost. Suhas bhai is right: Creating a deep sense of 'belonging without othering' was and remains an 'audacious project' always exposed to external challenges and internal hiccups. This is infinitely more difficult than the jingoistic political project of finding external and internal enemies to forge a unity based on hatred. But I am sure he does not believe that in this audacity lies its impossibility, that this is a good reason to give up on this project. The project of reclaiming Indian nationalism is not an optional project for some Indians of a particular ideological orientation. The success of this project is the precondition for the very survival of India. The writer is member, Swaraj India, and national convenor of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan. Views are personal