The Idea of India

by Sunil Khilnani

The author of Arguing Revolution explains how, since the departure of the British in 1948, India has struggled to maintain its identity, develop its economy, and fight poverty while uniting its people to form the enormous democracy it has become.

Genres: India, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Indian Literature, Cultural, Asia

263 pages, Hardcover

First published July 3, 1997

About the author

Sunil Khilnani is holder of the Avantha Chair and Director of the India Institute, which he established at King’s in 2011.
Born in New Delhi, he grew up in India, Africa, and Europe. He was educated at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where he took a first in Social and Political Sciences, and at King’s College, Cambridge, where he gained his PhD in Social and Political Sciences.

Prior to becoming Director of the King’s India Institute he was, from 2001 to 2011, the Starr Foundation Professor at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington D.C., and Director of South Asia Studies at SAIS, a program that he established in 2002.

Sunil Khilnani was formerly Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. He has been a visiting professor of politics at Seikei University, Tokyo, and was elected a Research Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge. He has also held a Leverhulme Fellowship, and has been a Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC, a Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Study (Wissenschaftskolleg) in Berlin, and a Fellow of the American Academy in Berlin.
His publications include: Arguing Revolution: The Intellectual Left in Postwar France (1993); The Idea of India (7th edn. 2016); with Sudipta Kaviraj, Civil Society: History and Possibilities (2000); with Nandan Nilekani, Pratap Mehta etc al., NonAlignment 2.0: a Foreign Policy for India in the 21st Century (2013); with Arun Thiruvengadam and Vikram Raghavan, Comparative Constitutionalism in South Asia (2013);
His most recent book is Incarnations: India in 50 Lives (2016), which accompanies his 50-part podcast and radio series broadcast on BBC Radio4 in 2015-2016.
Sunil Khilnani’s research interests lie at the intersection of various fields: intellectual history and the study of political thought, the history of modern India, democratic theory in relation to its recent non-Western experiences, the politics of contemporary India, and strategic thought in the definition of India’s place in the world. His is regular contributor to the Indian and international media.

Reviews

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, It took me 13 months to read this book. I knew very little about the book's context and about the ideas explored when I started reading the book (partly because of the allure of the title and partly because It was among the 25 Popular Penguins). During the first 12 months I read the first half of the book, plodding slowly, 2-3 pages once in a while, with a deliberate exercise of will-power, littering the book with marginalia and exclamation marks - amazed at the language and the torrent of ideas and information.

Then, unintentionally, the book was gradually put aside and lost among a growing tide of must-read books. Meanwhile, I read many other books dealing with the same subject matter and discussing many of the same questions, familiarizing myself to some extent with the numerous arguments. Today I picked up Khilnani again to read a few more pages to get a move on (I hate half-completed books on my shelf) and to my surprise, all the plodding was gone and I breezed through the rest of the book.

No more was it an incomprehensible lecture which I should try and capture as much of as I can, it was now a pleasant conversation with enough interesting back-and-forths from both sides that notes and such became unnecessary. The book became more memorable and the reading experience actually improved with this loss of awe.

This is the first mid-book transition for me in which the tone and texture of the book, along with my entire attitude towards it shifts so rapidly. Makes me wonder how much is missed by reading a well written and popular book first without taking the trouble to study the subject first - most of the richness that informed the author in his writing is lost on the reader by the author’s attempt to make the book more readable. It is a necessary tragedy. (Unless the reader takes it on himself to alleviate the collateral damage). Is it?




P.S. About the book itself, it is a very poetic and well written exploration of the question of Indian Identity. While Khilnani doesn't offer much in the form of new theories on what this definition should be, he very evocatively sets forth the many identities that have and continue to define the vast nation. The discussion on Nehru and Gandhi is exceptional in their clarity and the unreserved take on Hindutva deserves to be read with great attention. The last chapter rises to a poetic crescendo with Khilnani offering his own conceptions on how these various identities should be interpreted and accepted. The stunning bibliographic essay which lists close to 200 odd books is a treasure trove and has given me an enormous and intimidating list of books that should be explored.

[Piyush Bhatia · Rating 5 out of 5]

A concise yet informative account of independent India's political history

If you have a penchant for political history of independent India, and do not want to read many books, this is 'the' book. The subtlety of argument along with the neutrality of opinions is what makes this book a tour de force. It is said that some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested. This book falls in the third category, and hence needs to be thoroughly read - in fact, it should be relished like red wine. Enjoy the long statements, read slowly and let the language flow through your mind. In the end, this book will enable you to develop pessimism of the intellect & optimism of the will.

[Jerry Jose · Rating 3 out of 5]

Today’s newspaper had this news of a disabled man being abused at a multiplex (verbally with snide remarks) for not standing up during national anthem. Yes, our Supreme Court has this weird obsession towards assertion of patriotism in inappropriate places. Like Amartya Sen rightly expressed: “Indian identity is a combination of internal pluralism and external receptivity”, and efforts to homogenize by coercion leads to perversions like this. The idea of India has been contested and validated over time, and now, we are more interested and invested in who we want to be in this world than who we are. Still, after 20 years of publication, Khilnani’s trenchant analysis on this open, often revised idea of India is germane to our society in many ways.

Sunil Khilnani is an erudite scholar, and it is often reflected in his writing. On levels that it poses strict competition to Veronica Roth in finding jargons for Divergent factions. And language of this book is a bit baroque, if I may use words of his lexicon. Many things were rhetoric and repetitive in that narrative, well, they were hidden so deep in his elegant prose that they rarely came up as irritants. Though written during the time of disillusionment following Nehruvian socialism and emergence of Third Front in politics, it would be wrong to consider this book as rapporteur of things that has happened till then or as an irrelevant journal in light of events happened thereafter. For, the arguments in this book are coherently articulated along the long history of India as a civilization than a nation state.

I have mixed feelings towards this book and obvious disagreements, and a consolidated review is rightly beyond my capacity. Still would love to mention one portion that I enjoyed most -Indian modernity through architectural history of imperial capital. New Delhi was designed in hexagonal grids with housing segments distanced from central acropolis in descending gradient of 'rank', concreting the exclusive tendencies of Indian society. I found this precedence extremely helpful in understanding Gandhian economy and self-determination in villages against Ambedkar’s strong distaste for the same. Gandhi renounced colonial idea of city for village cosmology of Ashrams with his sartorial humility as ‘half naked fakir’ against British imperial pomp. To him, simple Indian occupation of departed English designs didn’t represent true freedom, and Gandhi advocated villages as sanctuary for civilizational powers through democratic dialogue. To Ambedkar, one who had first-hand experience of superstitious oppression, villages were beyond redemption and nothing but a sink of narrow mindedness and communalism.

Nehru on the other hand was more pragmatic in his approach to modernity, where he drew a distinction between inauthentic modernity, represented by colonial city and genuine modernity, that India should be rational not to reject. Khilnani further illustrates this with development of city of Chandigarh, and its intended International appeal by renouncement of both colonial imagery and nationalist monuments in design. Well, the city never achieved the cosmopolitanism it craved for, and it’s something for us readers to contemplate on. And story of Bombay, the foremost modern city of India, construes a centripetal narrative towards parochialism from its cosmopolitan past. Khilnani has a wonderful take on Shiv Sena’s narrow efforts to annex and distribute the benefits of modernity to one closed community against Bombay’s congestion which make it impossible for rich to flee the poor or any other selectivity to sustain in first place. Bombay might not be as cosmopolitan now as we can observe in Manto’s pre-independence stories, but it still isn’t that communal like author feared it would be 20 years back, which to me, is a silver lining.

In this extremely difficult job of consolidating an Idea of India, this reader, like author, also finds solace in tourism board poster caption that paraphrase Tagore, “India is a state of mind”.

‘One way of defining diversity for India, is to say what the Irishman is said to have said about trousers. When asked whether trousers were singular or plural, he said, “Singular at the top and plural at the bottom”.’

Khilnani hyphenates this quote by A.K. Ramanujan into his idea of India’s nationalism, which is plural equally at top as well as bottom, like a ‘dothi’ with endless folds (Hear, hear!).

[Anil Swarup · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book doesn't directly answer the critical question: What is the idea of India? However, it lays bare certain dimensions of the idea that enables the reader to have a reasonably good idea of the idea. A well researched book on what could be the idea of India. Given the complex matrix of Indian history and the present day existence, it is indeed difficult to articulate in black and white such an idea but one can comprehend and perhaps appreciate it as one walks through the pages of the book.

[Palash Bansal · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most insightful book one can find on a diverse topic of Indian Identity. I so wish the book was written recently with so much going on in the country, to add on to the content Sunil Khilnani has so eloquently put down in this book.
Apart from giving the political and economic history of India and how it shaped the identity of Indians, the author has succeeded in tackling the complex task of putting everything in a box while also treading the path of how the ideology of our 'nationalist heroes' shape the way Indians see themselves.
Chapter on "cities" needs particular mention, as it deals with something I never came across before. How the cities of Bombay, Delhi, Chandigarh, Ahmedabad etc took their present form, which we hardly take out time to think about.
Critics of the book claiming it to be very pro-congress probably would have skipped the part where Indira Gandhi was talked about. The role of Nehru in giving an identity to the nation needed emphasis which has rightly been done.
Overall, definitely worth a read!

[Letitia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Khilnani traces predominantly late colonial and early post-independence Indian history in an effort to discover what it is that defines "being Indian." He is strongly sympathetic to Nehru and promotes a similar idea of nationality that India's former prime minister would have espoused. What he does not manage to do convincingly is communicate from whence this idea of India derives, and why it deserves to be defended. In fact, it becomes abundantly clear through this work how diverse and disparate the groups of India are. Imposing a single nationality on them still continues to ring of colonialism. Good general history, particularly of the 20th century.

[Ruchik · Rating 1 out of 5]

The writer's proximity to the first family is well known;glosses over the excesses of the first family; and governance failures of Nehru;a pro Nehru-Gandhi view of India

[Ajay · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too biased.
Too much pro Nehru - Gandhi. It would have been better if author had written counter views as well.
Quite a dry read. Editor could have made it little shorter.

[Pri · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book is primarily written for Nehru-Gandhi (not MK gandhi) loyalists and quite evidently he(author) himself is one of them. I didn't know about him before coming across the book and nor do i bother to find more now but as per my understanding, i found the book to be too shady and biased. Ideologically inclined towards the "first" family and presented utopian view of their era. What i expected was a comment on what India was, is and what it should be, ideally. Although, I didn't find anything like that, the language was technical and political with being calculative at the same time. The text got extremely boring without presenting anything concrete. It was an analytical essay which manages to send you into a slump after few pages. It just didn't workout for me.

[Chitra · Rating 2 out of 5]

His style is a tad too dry. I went through the first half very quickly, and then came to a complete halt. I must have read 5 other books in the meanwhile...

Seemed very 'textbook'y, without much of personal relationship to the topic. Too Nehruvian and biased. The author would have done better if he had interspersed the narration with some anecdotes/stories.
I don't know if he made a point at the end of it all.

[Gowtham · Rating 4 out of 5]

    இந்தியாவை படிக்கத்தொடங்கலாம் என்று நினைத்து, நீண்ட நாட்களாக காத்திருப்பு பட்டியலில் இருந்த sunil khilani எழுதிய  “Idea of India” என்ற பிரபலமான நூலை வாசித்தேன். 


நூலின் முகப்பில் கூறியது போலவே நூல் முழுக்க நவீன இந்தியாவுக்கு நேருவின் பங்களிப்பையும் அதை தொடர்ந்து நடந்த அரசியல்- சமூக-பொருளாதார மாற்றங்களையும் பதிவுசெய்துள்ளார் நூல் ஆசிரியர்.  அந்த வகையில் இது நேருவை பற்றி தனிப்பட்ட முறையில் தெரிந்துகொள்ள அடிப்படையாக அமைந்தது. நேருவை படிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற ஆர்வமும் கூடியுள்ளது.


புத்தகம் நான்கு முக்கியமான விஷயங்களை பற்றி பேசுகிறது. இந்தியாவின் ஜனநாயகம்,பொருளாதாரம், உட்கட்டமைப்பு, மனிதவியல் ஆகிய கூறுகளில் நேருவின் தாக்கத்தையும், அவற்றை  காலநிலை மாற்றங்களோடு பிணைத்தும் எழுதியுள்ளார். 


இந்தியாவை பற்றி தாகூர் கூறும்போது "இந்தியா என்பது எல்லைகள் கொண்ட  நாடு அல்ல அது ஒரு சிந்தனை" சுருக்கமாக சொன்னால் “India is a state of mind”.

விடுதலைக்கு பிறகு இந்தியாவின் நிலை இது தான், வேறெந்த நாட்டிற்கும் இல்லாத கலாச்சார வேற்றுமை நமக்கு மட்டும் தான் உண்டு. இதை சிறப்பு என்பதா இல்லை சாபம் என்பதா  தெரியவில்லை. இப்படி பல்வேறு அடையாளங்களோடு சுற்றிக்கொண்டிருந்த நமக்கு சுதந்திரம் என்றதும் மகிழ்ச்சி கலந்த பேரதிர்ச்சி தான்.


இதில் பாகிஸ்தான் பிரிவினை ஒரு பக்கம் கொழுந்துவிட்டு எரிய, இன்னொருபக்கம் இந்தியா தன்னை பல்வேறு சிந்தனைகளுடன் கட்டமைத்து க்கொண்டிருந்தது.  காந்தியமா?, சோசலிசமா?, முதலாளித்துவமா?, ஹிந்து ராஜ்யமா?, மதசார்பற்ற நாடா?, ஜனநாயகமா?, சர்வாதிகாரமா? என்ற குழப்பத்தில் உழன்று கடைசியாக இறையாண்மைமிக்க ஜனநாயக குடிஅரசு என்று முடிவானது. இதில் காந்தியின் படுகொலை, பாகிஸ்தான் பிரிவினை, இந்துத்துவ சிந்தனை  என்ற அத்தனை நிகழ்வுகளின் தாக்கமும் நிறைந்திருப்பது வெளிப்படையாக தெரிகிறது. 


இந்தியாவின் பொருளாதார கொள்கையை பொறுத்தவரை, திட்டமிட்ட வளர்ச்சி  என்று சோசலிச தாக்கம் கொண்ட பொருளாதார பாதையை தேர்ந்தெடுத்தார் நேரு. அப்போதிருந்தே இந்தியாவை சூறையாட முதலாளித்துவ கூட்டம் தயாராக இருந்தது என்று வரலாறு பதிவுசெய்கிறது. 40 ஆண்டு தாக்கிப்பிடித்ததே பெரும்பாடு. 


இந்தியாவின் உள்கட்டமைப்பு குழப்பம் நிறைந்த ஒன்று, சுதந்திரத்திற்கு பிறகு நகரங்களை நவீன படுத்தவேண்டும் என்ற கட்டாயம் ஏற்ப்பட்டது, ஆனால் மேற்கிந்திய பாங்கில் கட்டமைப்பதா அல்லது இந்தியா முறையை என்று வரும்போது இரண்டின் கலவையிலும்  தான் பல நகரங்கள் உருவாக்கப்பட்டன. பஞ்சாப் மாநிலத்தில் உள்ள சண்டிகர் நகரம் அதற்கு எடுத்துக்காட்டாக கூறப்படுகிறது. 


அடுத்தது இந்தியாவில் சுதந்திரத்திற்கு பிறகு நடந்த அரசியல் இயங்கியலை, அதில் ஜனநாயகத்தின் பங்கையும் விவரிக்கிறது. இந்தியாவின் அடிக்கட்டமைப்பே பன்முகத்தன்மையும் , கலாச்சார வேற்றுமையும் தான், என்றைக்கு அந்த கருத்தியல் சிதைக்க பட்டு ‘ஒற்றை’ அடையாளத்திற்குள் அடைக்கும் முயற்சி தொடங்குகிறதோ அன்றைக்கு இந்தியா தனது ஒற்றுமையை இழக்கும். 


புத்தகம் வெளிவந்த சமயத்தில்(1997)  பாஜக ஆட்சி, பாபர் மசூதி இடிப்பு விவகாரம், மண்டல் கமிஷன் என அத்தனை புற காரணிகளை வைத்து முடிவுரை எழுதியுள்ளார். இந்துத்துவ சக்திகளால் ஜனநாயகத்திற்கு ஆபத்து, என்ற தொனியில்  புத்தகத்தை முடிப்பார். அவர் எழுதிய முடிவுரை இன்னும் வீரியங்களுடன் மாற்றம்பெற்று இன்றைய தேவையாக அமைகிறது. 


இதை எல்லாம் தாண்டி விமர்சனமாக வைக்கவேண்டுமானால், தென்னிந்தியா முழுக்க முழுக்க புறக்கணிக்க பட்டுள்ளது. பெயருக்கு பெங்களூரும், ராஜிவ் படுகொலைக்காக  சென்னையும் இடம்பெற்றுள்ளதே தவிர தென்னிந்தியா பற்றிய செய்திகள் குறைவு தான். குறைந்தபட்ச்சம் உள்கட்டமைப்பு பற்றியாவது பதிவுசெய்திருக்கலாம். அதே போல நவீன இந்திய ஜனநாயகத்தில் பெரிய அளவில் தாக்கத்தை உண்டு செய்த அம்பேத்கரின் பெயர் முற்றிலும் புறக்கணிக்க பட்டதாக தான் தெரிகிறது. அம்பேத்கரின் நூற்றாண்டுக்கு பிறகு வெளிவந்த நூலுக்கே இந்த நிலை என்றால் அதற்கு முன்பான வரலாற்று நூல்களின் உண்மைத்தன்மையை ஆய்வுக்குட்படுத்துவது அவசியமாகிறது. இந்த விமர்சனங்கள் எல்லாம் "idea of india” என்று பெயர் வைத்ததால் மட்டும் தான் எழுகிறது சொல்ல போனால் இதன் பெயர் “Nehru’s idea of north india” என்று வைத்திருக்கலாமோ என்று தான் தோன்றுகிறது.


விமர்சனங்களை எல்லாம்  தாண்டி இந்நூல் இந்தியாவின் தோற்றத்தை உங்களுக்கு அடையாளம் கண்டுகொடுக்கும், அதன் வரலாறு நமக்கான பாடம். அன்றைக்கு அவர்கள் அடைந்த அச்சங்கள் எல்லாம் இன்றைக்கு நேரில் நடந்தேறி கொண்டிருக்கும் இக்கட்டான சூழலில் இந்த வாசிப்பு அவசியமாகிறது. இந்த மழைக்காட்டின் வாழ்வும் சாவும் எதிர்கால தலைமுறையானா நமது அணுகுமுறையில் தான் உள்ளது. 


BOOK: The Idea of India

AUTHOR: sunil khilani


#do_read

#india

#democracy

#diversity 

[Brennan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book on my train ride from Bangalore to New Delhi, which gave the book a surreal pop-up feel. The book offers a post-modernist look at India, predominantly covering the Nehru and Indira Gandhi eras. Through the lens of these two key eras, Sunil successfully engages the reader in understanding what makes the country what it is today. It excels in being bold and objective, especially in its claims that the Hindu nationalist movement have contributed to the Partition. The book goes as far as demonstrating how the "village" mindset is pervasive in the Indian nation and her culture, however, this is where the book also falls short as it gives an essentialist take on British-aligned Indians and "Village" Indians (i.e. us vs. them).

For those living in Commonwealth nations (Singapore, Malaysia, etc.) this is a highly recommended read as it does shed some light on the neo-colonialists mentality that we still hold.

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was alright.

[Muthu Raj · Rating 5 out of 5]

The mere compression of the idea of India into such a thin book as this is audacious.
What's even more stunning is, the author succeeds in it. I am unable to claim with a clear conscience that the idea, as it were, made itself plain to me, in any realistic sense of the word. However, the exploration of the idea in this manner lends an air of legitimacy that, depending on who you are, might be the thing that India needs the most. Or just a rhetoric philandering of words.

There are valuable insights into ideas and policies that most people, if not all, tend to brush away in abstracted labels.

The author upholds the importance of analysing the details, not to merely specialise in them, but to derive an outlook, one that is strongly grounded to reality, yet, offers a stunning bird eye's view. Must re-read.

[Spartacus7 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautifully written analysis of the cultural, religious, economic and political landscape of India since independence and partition in 1947, and the changes that have taken place over the 50 years since.

Few authors can capture the moods and mood-swings of their country as Khilnani can in such lucid, lively, and invigorating form - especially one as complex, diverse and vast as India.

Not that this is a frivolous, personal account: This is a serious work, well researched and analysed, and intended to give weight to the almost mind-boggling breadth and depth of the issues it deals with.

To do this so successfully in little more than 200 pages seems a marvel. The remaining 50 pages is given over to an explanation and rationale of the very extensive sources used, and a glossary of terms/index, which is very useful and includes short but helpful biographies of the many leading actors over roughly 100 years.

The work is broken into an Introduction: Ideas of India, 4 main chapters (Democracy, Temples of the Future, Cities, and Who is an Indian?), and finishes with an Epilogue: The Garb of Modernity.

The last of these alone (some 12 or 13 pages) is very well worth reading, even on its own, as it draws a wide arc across the purpose and values and pitfalls of all governing systems (most particularly democracies) and is pause for considerable reflection reagrdless of what democratic (or otherwise-governed) country you might live in.

And yet, all the pointers to this finely concluding Epilogue are there throughout the work. This book is about India, but it is about all of us. One doesn't have to work hard to see the parallels with any democracy throughout the work but the Epliogue brings it home.

The clipped, measured writing style is easy to read but packed full of information - a very difficult balance. It rarely strays into overt condemnation, and never into polemic, but lets the information do the talking. On the other side, it doesn't often stray into abstruse sentence construction.

A fine work, worthy of its title.

4.5 stars

[Jashan Singhal · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book took a really long time to finish for a 200-odd pages book. I have mixed opinions about the book. This is a book about the ideals on which India was formed and bolstered.

To use Khilani's own words, this book is written in "the purplest of the late Victorian prose". The language used by the author is a bit impenetrable and sometimes I had to read each line thrice in order to make sense of it. And even after all this work, I felt like I have not retained or made sense of most of the material presented in the book. When we unlock the content for what it is, it even feels repetitive at times.

The book is divided into four chapters - Democracy, Temples of the Future, Cities, Who is Indian?

In my opinion the last two chapters were sheer brilliance. In fact, the last chapter, "Who is Indian?" should have been the first one in order to give the readers a good takeoff. Chapter Three on the growth, shaping and sculpting of different cities of India in the paranthetic period around British Raj departure is quite engrossing.

This book is more like a supplementary read to "Discovery of India" (which I plan to read soon), and the author is a clear worshipper of Jawahar Lal Nehru. No doubt, he also managed to ignite in me a deep sense of veneration for our first prime minister who no doubt is the architect of modern India.

Khilani quotes Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, which to me is the perfect definition of India:
India is an ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously

I would soon give this book a read again because it is filled with pearls which I am sure I didn't mine hard enough in the first go.

[Kim Stallwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me a while to read this book. Too many interruptions. And other stuff. But only just now finished it and spurred on by a forthcoming visit to India starting in about one month's time. I'm glad I read this book as it provides an in-depth description of India from the point of view of its democracy, spirituality, urban development and and Indians themselves. It helped me to appreciate how until its independence, India wasn't a country as it was a loose collection of peoples and their cultures. I recommend this book for those who want to learn more about India.

[Rick Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

What is your own thought on this?

I have contested the idea of India - Why?

What I understand - India, as a concept, was borrowed from the West.

It was top-down, where elites from Congress Party had shared a vision. This was not shared by grass-root level Indian, villagers.

India is an ongoing unique political experiment.


On Unity of India:

In Tamil Nadu, when families would not allow marriages to happen between people who live next streets - Why? Caste.

When they are not ready to mix together, then, how could India as an entire political entity be united?

What in modern India, brings them together?

a) Cricket brings all Indians together
b) Movies might bring all Indians together.

Other than that, what thread runs among all Indians? And so, they would care for each other.

Most of the time, It's "us vs them." with linguistic labels, caste labels, regionalism, city labels, state labels.

How much time would it take to read this?

About 4 hours. A Train Ride, Airplane Ride, Commute would suffice for this book.

Why should I read this book?

If you are interested in history of India.

If you want a condensed narrative of India from Independence.

Why did I read this book?

I grew up in Tamil Nadu. I have met people from other parts of India. When I am with them, I am not considered Indian. I am Tamil to them.

My Impressions:
a) I am not looked equally
b) People inject stereotypes
c) People self-sort in India based on linguistic lines
d) People are strongly insular within regions

Therefore, I was curious to hear about idea of India.

What is the summary of the book?

Outline:


A-Idea of India:
A.1-Democracy
A.2- Temples of Future
A.3- Cities
A.4-Who is Indian?


The Book is written in an exploratory narrative, where the author explores the idea of India through various lenses. He does not give a conclusion.

In, Chapter One — Democracy:

Sunil, the author gives condensed history of India from Independence, focusing on Congress Party, Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Constitution of India, Regional Political Parties.

In Chapter Two — Temples of Future:

Most of this chapter deals with Political economy. From British Raj to Economic Liberalization in 1990s, he condenses and gives a summary of interest groups, political parties.

The highlight of this chapter is - Mahalanobis. He is a famous statistician. I wasn’t surprised to see his name. I recall, during last century, Bengal has produced many notable names in the field of science and humanities. Mahalanobis was recruited in Planning Commission. Currently, It is called as NITI Aayog. People like Mahalanobis are located in IISC in modern India.

Mahalanobis was a statistician by training. He was culturally and literary literate that he was recruited to write, Oxford Book of Bengali Verse. However, it was abandoned. Nehru was quick to include scientific opinion on planned economy. Since 1990s, Center started to concede power to regional parties to form economic policies.

Chapter Three — Cities:

The author starts with ports of Madras, Calcutta and Bombay, which were established during arrival of English East India Company. This was quite interesting to read. I was meandering into Real-Estate Market in New Delhi, Bombay. I discovered about the famous, "Malabar Hill." Most of the properties are in the range, 10C -30C - Would you gift me one?

He gives a quick economic history of Ahmedabad. He says, Ahmedabad had a long history of being self-generated prosperity. In my own understanding, I was relating Ahmedabad with Chennai. They both seem to be at the same level economically, population wise.

The entire chapter deals about cities —New Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bombay, Chandigarh, Bangalore. Bangalore, the city where most Western educated Indians are located.

Chapter Four — Who is Indian?

Sunil, the author explores narratives by different people.

This Chapter is the meat of the book. Sadly, I didn't discover anything new to expand my understanding, knowledge. In India, there is no fixed unity that brings people together across communities, linguistic divisions.

The substance of the Indian past was so diverse, so discontinuous, and often so downright contradictory that present desire, far from an embarrassing intrusion, was actually essential to discerning a pattern and order that could show it to be a ‘history’.

This is embarrassing. Many Indians would feel shamed irked, angry. Worry not, we admit the truth, we learn and write things honestly, accurately.

In writings of Robert Caldwell, scholar-missionary in Tamil Nadu, he could not find out undisputed sources for writing History of Tirunelveli. He said, when asked to local people, they quote Hindu myths, fables, legends.

It seems when writing History in India, Politics gets into the way. People re-write to create legitimacy for their political power. It is highly difficult to come to accurate, honest picture.

For Gandhi on the idea of India, the answer was in folklore, religious tradition. He was an admirer of Villages. He often retreated into his ashram located in Village.

Gandhi says, “‘I believe,’ he wrote, ‘that a nation is happy that has no history.”

My own response to this quote: Dear Gandhi, without a past, people would be confused, lost without an identity, sorry I disagree with you, Can you forget about your family history, ancestor history?

During late 17th century and early 18th century, Orientalists like William Jones and others sought out to know about Hindoos, India. They admired Sanskrit. They learnt Hindu literature with pandits and respected old myths and stories. In other works based on my reading, the first generation of Orientalist were fond of Hindoos and India. They had become Indianized.

The tide of opinion changed around mid 19th century. James Mill, a Scottish Historian worked for English India Company. Mill is the Father of famous, John Stuart Mill, known for his writings in utilitarianism.

When the History of British India written by James Mill was published, It changed opinion from admiring Hindoos and India into looking down on Hindoos and India.

His Chapter, 'Of the Hindus' was single source for change of attitude on Hindus. Mill says, the Hindoos were "dissembling, treacherous, mendacious."

My Own response:

Mill was apparently unaware of cross-cultural differences. I have come across this in many writings from the West and East. Currently, Jackson Wu has published many works in this. Although he writes from religious tradition, his work is accurate and honest on cultural nuances.

Adding the anthropological framework of honor/shame, fear/power, guilt/law would be the right way to interpret people groups, culture and society.

In honor-shame society - Most people don't want to lose face.

They would say things, which might not be true. This it is to protect their face. It does not mean they are lying. From guilt/law perspective, this seems to be a blatant lie, but that's not how people in honor-shame operate. Sadly, Mill never learnt basics in anthropology, looked just outward appearances.

The Meat of difference -- lie in examining values of people groups.

So, his observation on Hindoos is moot.

The Hindu Nationalist disputed English Writings. This can be seen through lens of Ayodhya Ram Mandir dispute. Hindu Nationalist wrote a counter narrative to British History. Their narrative lies in works of Sarvarkar. Sarvarkar, he wrote history: a counter narrative of what the British termed the Mutiny of 1857, which Savarkar recounted as The Indian War of Independence, 1857; and, in 1923, Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?

Finally, Nehru’s answer to question of Indianness. In his work, Discovery of India, He does not try to unite them. He falls in love with India.

Nehru says, “Four hundred million separate individual men and women, each differing from the other, each living in a private universe of thought and feeling. Unity cannot be brought about by enacting a law that all shall be one. "

The bilingual, bicultural idea of an Indian identity, the idea that animated the nationalist movement, is fragmenting into three cultural segments: a small but powerful anglicized metropolitan élite; a loose, huge group of Hindi-speaking urban middle classes and lower castes; and the vernacular regional cultures. The lines of political connection now run across and among these fragments, and are producing an intricate tessellation of identities.

In Epilogue: Modernity

Many Indians discovered India through the West. Annanya, a scholar brahmin who was in Chicago became obsessed with India. Nehru, studied in England, and during his imprisonment, he wrote Discovery of India, which captured his love for India. Many others had similar path for India.

Bibliographical Essay:

This contains all the sources and references. This was exhaustive.
I would highly recommend keeping this book. This is to get sources for this topic.

The Book does not have a flow and organization. The Author could have used sub-headings to help readers follow his work.

I would recommend reading this work instead,

India - Cross-Cultural Conversations by Gurpreet Mahajan


Deus Vult,
Gottfried

[Biju P.R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Plenty of things have already written about idea of India. Most books have placed it in the context of debate between India of Nehru as liberal, modern, free from colonial/feudal vs. India of a conservative version glorifying ancient culture. This book too not an exception. It placed the idea of India in this trajectory of ancient vs. modern. To that respect, to the best of my knowledge many books have been born of that line. Ram Guha's book particularly India After Gandhi,, Shashi Tharoor's recent books, are just to mention few. This book's merit is in the power of analysis of the events following Independence. After Independence, India has seen as book narrated that many issues that followed in the five decades of democracy was born of the contradiction in which India was born. This contradiction will certainly continue. And books like this will be written again. It is a good read.

It was useful for writing the firs chapter of my book Lovescape.

[Anurag · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are many books on the topic ‘definition of India’. Many of them presenting their own theories, some of them meticulously researched ones and some of them written with an aim to propagate a particular ideology. The Idea of India is one such book which defines "Indian-ness" from the viewpoint of Sunil Khilnani, a Professor of Politics, and Director of the King's College London India Institute. The author describes the events of past hundred years to tell us what is the unifying us Indians. Or is there any unifying thing? Or is the respect of diversity is unifying India? When Indian Union was formed in 1947 many in West prophesied that India won't survive owing to its own differences. The Western Idea of nationalism meant that India is a continent with different cultures like Europe is. But India stands today united and stronger than earlier. The author tries to find the reasons behind this.

While describing these things author could have been more neutral instead of sticking with a particular ideology. The author heaped lavish praise on Jawaharlal Nehru for his thoughts, comfortably ignoring his few deeds such as Sino-Indian war in 1962. In fact author rues the war because it led increased military expenditure and military officers ending up having more say in strategic matters. What author fails to emphasize that the Idea of India can flourish only if its borders are safe. Also the author criticized home-grown nationalist movements more than he did British Raj for colonialism. Overall this book is an interesting read especially first two chapters even if you do not agree with author's viewpoint, presented in nice story-telling style.

Read more about the democracy, economic policies, cities and definition of an Indian as discussed by the author in my detailed book review here :
'The Idea of India' by Sunil Khilnani

[Srijan Chattopadhyay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Being acquainted with Mr Sunil Khilnani (through his columns in newspapers ) I expected a solid insight-filled derivative of post-independence assessment literature and disappointment is not on my platter as I stand satiated.

The author, in simple words, sets out to determine this giant of a country (I am not only talking about size) through several ideas and narratives. Some of them are Western white stamped, some are soaked with deep oriental philosophical garbs and the rest of them, tinged with religion, cultural hegemony or no-nonsense nationalistic fervour, accompany him.

This 250-page, densely written, dialogue-esque book implements these above-mentioned ideas on the four foundational concepts needed to build a nation-state from a civilization, namely- Democracy, future, cities and identity, trying to devise a concrete neat box into which this unshackled creature (India) can be stacked but like a unicorn, it eludes all ideas.

This book does not belong to the brethren of market flooding popular ' who did what without the why ' history paperbacks. Without a basic politico-social essence of this country, intimidation lies ahead in this reading journey.

The Author, deft in this domain, dissects every panorama of this land that our founding fathers envisioned it to be. He digs deep to deconstruct the axles of their analytical mind wheel to decipher their trailblazing legacy on the blueprint of India.

The tug of war that ensues due to the friction of all these whorls of ideas, according to the author, makes this country sail.
A fine specimen of learned writing on the discourse of nation-play, this is a must-read.

Happy reading.

[Tirath · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is Nehru to blame for the India today?
Why did Indira choose to declare a state of Emergency?
How did Indian politics change because of Indira Gandhi?
What is India?
How has the political landscape of the country changed from the 1900s?
Why did the BJP and other regional parties become strong?


The book answers these quite well.
As a 90s kid, I dont know much about India's past - and now there is more light on it.

Great book - - too verbose in most parts; and the last chapter is a filler.
But still, a great book for young Indians

[Rishabh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fresh perspective

[SUBRATA DATTA · Rating 2 out of 5]

Review?

No. Reviewing a book is a specialized craft. That is beyond my competence.

I am a general reader. All I do, after I finish reading a book, is to jot down my impressions. For my own benefits, primarily. For other, perceptive, readers it may be gibberish.

Sunil Khilnani’s The Idea of India is probably the first book I am “jotting down my impressions” about without actually finishing it.

Scandalous? To a certain extent may be it is. Then why write it down in the first place? Well, if years later if I ever take up the book again – which is not particularly likely – it will tell me how I felt about the book in those sultry summer days of 2023. That’s why.

But doesn’t that make my “impressions” incomplete? Biased even?. It may. Still …

Those who have read and enjoyed – I did – Sunil Khinanai’s Incarnations: India in 50 Lives will probably be pretty disappointed by The Idea of India.

When a book comes with a glowing endorsement by Amartya Sen – he being what he is – “spirited, combative, insight-filled”, you somehow feel being on guard. Or is it my prejudice speaking? Who knows!

The book was first published 1997. Somehow, it conveys an impression that a young academic (Shri Khilnani was 37 then) was desperately trying to catch the attention of the West.

In his Introduction to the 2003 edition of the book Shri Khilnani sounded suitably appalled that in 2001 Gujarat had “imploded, as Hindus slaughtered and set alight hundreds of their fellow Muslim citizens. … the murderous Hindu gangs were led by the rich and the educated: doctors and advocates roved in cars, punched mobile phones and used government-supplied computer printouts of Muslim addresses to conduct their pogrom.”

The book somehow gives an overwhelming impression that it is “history” written with certain kind of ideology in mind and certain kind of audience in view.

And, 25 years after it was written, the book feels very dated. Now, in 2023, as the head of the government that Shri Khilnani referred to in his 2003 Introduction offers shashtang pranam to an ancient dharm dand in a brand new Parliament House, Shri Khilnani and his fellow travelers will probably be even more appalled than he was in 2003!

In the last decade India has changed significantly. It has changed direction to turn to Bharat. A change that is not very palatable to certain sections of people in this ancient land.

As a representative of these sections, Shri Khilnani firmly believes that “foundations of modern India” have been laid by the country’s first Prime Minister. And to a certain extent that is not untrue. IITs, IIMs dams and irrigation projects and many more. But academics like Shri Khilnani conveniently overlooks that much of the country’s present-day problems can be traced back to the misjudgments of the same Nehru – a man who wielded absolute power after three of the ablest men of the time left the scene – Patel, Mukherjee and Ambedkar. And when Nehru’s great grandson, on the foreign soils, raves and rants that democracy in India is in utter peril, he (and the academics we have become familiar with) dutifully forgets that in 1946, his great grandfather became Congress president – and the Prime Minister of the country – in the most undemocratic manner imaginable. Courtesy his mentor, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

The Bibliographical Essay at the end of the book makes for interesting reading and bears testimony to wide reading of the author.

As the next General Elections are coming closer, supporters of the political party presently in power in New Delhi believe that forces – both inside and outside the country – have been unleashed to ensure that Narendra Modi-led government is thrown out of power.

Whether it is true or just a well-entrenched paranoia only time will tell.

But one thing is probably clear. Seventy five years after the gora saheb has left we probably have outgrown the need of a certain kind of narrative. Even if expressed in impeccable English.

[E.T. · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5/5 This "classic" was written in 1997. Around that time, as a child I remember asking my parents/teachers a question - "If all our leaders were so great, why is India such a poor country ?".
I didnt find "The Idea of India" in the book. It was more of a selective (in more ways than one) history and hagiography of Nehru. The "visionary" whose "visions" visibly failed. Except for the Hindu personal law reforms, for which I really respect him.
The book is divided into 4 chapters and lets take each in turn :-
a) Democracy - The author remarks that Nehru was uncompromising in adherence to constitutional principles. Has he read about the First Amendment ? The only thing that works about Indian democracy is elections with universal suffrage. We had those with Nehru and we have those 57 years after him.
b) Economics - I dont even want to comment on his failures.
c) Cities - This was more of a history of cities from the British era.
d) Who is an Indian - Savarkar's and Nehru's visions were presented. Needless to say, in the author's opinion, Nehru's vision was great but then the author himself wonders why it fell apart in the 1980s ! Well, I have said it for long that India needs a "Truth and Reconciliation" commission urgently. For long, left-liberals controlled the flow of information and history but in this information age, lies will be found out. Just as Mr.Khilnani is being found out.
Having said that, some insights were truly refreshing. And if you can ignore the fanboy stuff, it is readable. But, with lies, mistakes and biases that one must be on the lookout for.

[Pranjal Awasthi · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Idea of India by Sunil Khinani is a book about the concept of Indian-ness studied from three lenses of sociology, history and polity.

➡️The book is about the various thoughts which dominated the Indian public sphere of deliberation from post independence, through partition and up untill the liberalisation reforms. During these tumultuous decades the world saw the rise of a liberal democratic polity which was rife with contradictions yet stable.

➡️ Khilnani talks about these very contradictions and schools of thought like Nehru's vision of a liberal order, rise of Hindu nationalism, the ebb and flows of the strength of the federal order, emboldening of the bureaucracy, economic malfunctions, rise of cosmopolitan cities etc.

➡️This is a great book to have if you'd like to know more about the concept and idea of India as envisioned by out forefathers and as implemented by their successors. The multifaceted nature of Khilnani's research makes for a very engaging and satisfying read. One also cannot help but notice that the origins of our modern fault lines can be more often than not be traced to very specific policy decisions taken earlier and that makes for great perspective. Recommend it

[Ayush Anand · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interestingly, the book never tries to answer what is the idea of india, and with good reason. It traces the journey of independent India (47-96) and lays out the background of how certain policies/events came about. It’s well researched, can be tiring as it’s language wasn’t simple. Reading this book underlines how utterly fascinating is the mere existence of a democratic undivided India, almost 75 years after democracy was suddenly thrust upon a population which had a faint understanding of it.

[Suysauce · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superbly concise primer on postcolonial Indian history, seamlessly blending political and intellectual narratives of modern India.

[Kathleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Originally, Hindutva had been an early-twentieth-century mash of ingredients from Hindu scriptures, Mazzinian nationalism, anti-individualist communitarianism and nineteenth-century European race theories==an ideology designed to show that India rightfully belonged to Hindus. But Modi seasoned the religious ideology with one of economic efficacy" (xv).

"The thread that runs throughout is a concern with politics, understood as a necessarily undeterminable field of human agency, a space of constantly competitive, strategic and practical action, undertaken in conditions of imperfect and partial information. As both Gandhi and Nehru in their different ways had earlier seen, politics is at the heart of India's passage to and experience of modernity. In a fundamental sense, India does not merely 'have' politics but is actually constituted by politics" (9).

"...the first organized response to the Raj: the formation in 1885 of the Indian National Congress. Initially, Congress merely requested that the privileges of British subjects be extended to obedient Indians, but by the 1920s it started to lay claim, in the name of the nation, to possession of the state and its territory. The history of Congress is that of a protean party with an exceptional capacity constantly to reinvent itself" (25).

"But representative democracy--in India as elsewhere--does not operate through a simple instrumental relation between representative and represented. The relation between politicians and their supporters includes a larger cultural connection, a felt sense of identification and trust. Democratic politics seems to require that identities and perceptions of interest be stable; but political identities and interests do not have a pre-political existence--they have to be created through politics. Thus, paradoxically, democratic politics must itself produce the very identities and interests which it presupposes in order to function in the first place. And this process of identity creation is a dangerous business, more akin to conflict than competition" (49).

"Mrs. Gandhi flirted with religious sentiments and appeals, hinting that the categories 'non-Hindu' and 'anti-national' overlapped. It was the secular modernist Indian elite who dragged this language of religious affiliations into the arena of national politics: it entered public life via the state itself, not from the supposedly primordial margins of the political culture" (54).

"[Congress's] increased reliance on appeals to caste and religion helped to politicize those social categories and draw them into the national arena, but it also offered opportunities to rivals. The BJP, dedicated to a redefinition of nationalism in exclusively Hindu terms, was a grateful beneficiary of this" (56).

"These new caste parties were in principle stoutly opposed to the Hindu nationalism of the BJP and entered into alliances with Muslim and Christian communities against what they saw as a conspiracy of uppper-caste Hindus to return to the oppressive *varna* hierarchies of ancient India. Yet in their battles against oppression, they did not invoke universal principles of justice and rights. Instead, they struggled quite explicitly to corner special privileges for their communities" (57).

"Yet the meaning of democracy has been menacingly narrowed to signify only elections. The compulsion to win power publicly and legitimately has provoked unpicturesque illegalities, old and innovative-violence, corruption, and 'booth-capturing,' the take-over of a polling station by armed thugs"so that ballot boxes may be stuffed with uniformly fake ballots supporting the local darling. [...]

But more generally, other democratic procedures have weakened with neglect. In any modern democracy elections are part of a larger set of rules and practices designed to authorize the state, but in India they are carrying the entire burden of society's aspirations to control its opportunities. As the sole bridge between state and society, they have come metonymically to stand for democracy itself; their very simplicity, their conversion since the 1970s into referenda where voters were offered simple choices, have made them universally comprehensible. This expansion of elections to fill the entire space of democratic politics has altered how political parties muster support (58).

"The Congress left's two most rousing voices, Subhas Chandra Bose and Behru, arrived at an understanding of political economy through an analysis of imperialism, which they understood as an economic form propelled by imperatives of capitalist production, not as a project of racial domination or civilizational supremacy. It would therefore be foolish to conceive of Indian independence merely as a political condition asn many Congressmen did" (71).

"At the third such Dunbar, in 1911, George V with Napoleonic modesty first crowned himself emperor then announced the transfer of the Indian capital rom Calcutta to a proposed site at Delhi" (121).

"Twice in the twentieth-century India has been visited by architectural megalomaniacs: Le Corbusier began work on Chandigarh barely twenty years after imperial New Delhi had been completed to Luytens's plans" (131).

"Four hundred million separate individual men and women, each differing from the other, each living in a private universe of thought and feeling" (150).

"Gandhi rejected the idea that past history was a source for defining future possibilities or orienting present action. The British fascination with historical dissertations was expressive of their desire to dominate: history was used to justify colonial rule and to show that past dissensions prohibited the possibility of future unity for India. It was only by kicking this British 'habit of writing history' that Indians could release themselves from the cultural harassments of their rulers: 'I look upon Gibbon and motley as inferior editions of the Mahabharata'" (164).

"His appeal to preexisting local beliefs and identities in order to create a larger, Indian one was tied to an idea of swadeshi, a patriotism based on a respect for the everyday material world inhabited by most on the subcontinent. His adoption of cloth as a symbol of interconnectedness exemplified this esteem of the everyday" (165).

"Isaiah Berlin has written of Tagore that 'he never showed his wisdom more clearly than in choosing the difficult middle path, drifting neither to the Scylla of radical modernism, nor to the Charybdis of proud and gloomy traditionalism', and Nehru too had that capacity to keep to the centre, to find a cultural poise that allowed him to accept the presence of his Englishness as one more layer to his Indian self. there was, for Nehru, no return to a past purity, no possibility of historical cleansing" (171).

"To win national elections without the support of the regional 'bosses,' Mrs. Gandhi had to transform Congress from a federal party into a mass party. This put it in the classic dilemma of every mass party in a competitive democracy: it claimed to speak for and to govern in the 'national' interest, but to be able to do so it had to appeal directly to people as members of particular communities" (182).

"The Indian nationalism of Gandhi and Nehru not only resisted invoking religion, but had also scrupulously avoided defining the nation in terms of a majority community. But the populist turn in Indian politics redefined democracy as majority rule. The operations of this simplified sense of democracy began to unravel the nationalist imagination" (183).

"Where in the world is India? Historical precedent suggests that it is possible to be wildly--if profitably--wrong about its geographical location (remember Columbus). And there is a venerable tradition that has insisted on seeing India as a conceptual rather than a physical space. 'A country,' as Rabindranath Tagore put it, 'is not territorial, but ideational'" (198).

"Partition is the unspeakable sadness at the heart of the idea of India: a memento mori that what made India possible also profoundly diminished the integral value of the idea" (201-202).

"The modern state too is a fictive entity; and it too maintains a stubborn reality. It is by definition impersonal, and it needs to remain that way if it is to be a state at all. In Hobbes's famous, bizarre image of the Leviathan, it is a persona ficta, an 'artificial man' that encompasses both rulers and ruled, but belongs to neither. It cannot be reduced to, or identified with, any one element in society. Conceptually and practically, the state is an alien, unnatural entity, often an active menace to its own subjects. But it also offers them protections. The citizens or subjects of a state themselves regularly pose mutual individual or collective hazards. The greatest cruelties are often those inflicted by neighbors, by those who have lived alongside one another and who in some sense are all too intimately familiar with each other's ways. Every state carries within it traces of what Hobbes called the 'state of nature'" (203).

"The ambition to rid oneself of the state, to escape it by retreat to the village or to wish its elimination, is a forlorn ambition. Equally misdirected is the desire to blend the state within the identity of all or some over whom it rules: to make it the state of a singular religion, culture, or ethnos--the torrid, empty dream of partition. The only normative aspiration in modern politics can be to make states more trustworthy to all who must live under them: to make them more graceful and civilized in their dealings with their citizens, and with one another. In that project of civilizing political power, the model of constitutional democracy has proved the most reliable instrument available to modern populations. It is not the finest product of the desiring human intellect. But it is certainly more practicable than other, more promethean conceptions. It has proved reasonably effective in the struggle to create and sustain a degree of identification between states and their citizens. Allegiance and identification in the modern world are profoundly political relationships. Religion, language, culture, economic interdependence: these all can help to foster the sense of belonging. But ultimately, identification with or allegiance to a state must be sustained, if it is to be sustained at all, by constant renewal through consent" (203-204).

p. 218 mentions Gramsci's idea of "passive revolution" which is a transformation of the political and institutional structures by ruling classes for their own self-preservation. AKA a gradual but continuous reorganization of the state and economy in order to preserve the power of the elite by incorporating or neutralizing the power of adversarial groups through transforming them into partner

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

I lost Caesar Bose, a very close friend of mine, to cancer in the year 2017. He was three years my senior and one of the ace scholars I have had the privilege of knowing. We had started a project in 2009, wherein we sought to make a judiciously curated list of the toughest, most intellectually demanding, dense, or conceptually challenging books ever written — across philosophy, literature, science, mathematics, theology, psychoanalysis, linguistics, and critical theory. In this list would be books known for difficulty of language, abstraction, structure, or depth. We grouped them by category so the list was useful and not random. These books find a place in my ‘Toughest Read Shelf’. It is my obeisance to Caesar.

Khilnani’s tome is one of those rare ones, that looks modest on the shelf but behaves like a philosophical time bomb once opened. It does not announce itself as a “difficult” text. There is no syntactic aggression, no deliberate opacity, no conceptual machismo.

And yet, the difficulty it poses is subtler, more insidious, and—arguably—more lasting than many heavyweight theoretical tomes. This is not the difficulty of understanding words; it is the difficulty of sustaining a thought without falling back on myth, sentiment, or ideological convenience.

Unlike civilizational epics or nationalist polemics, Khilnani’s book is not interested in India as essence. It is interested in India as ‘‘choice’’. And that alone makes the book quietly radical.

At its heart, ‘The Idea of India’ advances a simple but destabilizing proposition: India is not an ancient inevitability that naturally matured into a modern nation-state; it is a ‘‘deliberately imagined political project’’, forged in the furnace of colonial rupture and mass democracy. The “idea” in the title is not metaphorical. It is literal. India had to be thought into being.

This immediately places Khilnani in conversation with a long tradition of political philosophy—from Rousseau’s social contract to Anderson’s imagined communities—but with a critical difference. India’s imagining was not conducted by a homogeneous elite or within manageable scale.

It was imagined amid staggering diversity, poverty, illiteracy, trauma, and the violent birth pangs of Partition. The audacity of this project, Khilnani insists, lies not in its civilizational depth but in its ‘‘modernity’’.

Here, the book subtly overturns the familiar narrative that Indian democracy is successful because it draws strength from ancient traditions. Khilnani does not deny cultural depth, but he refuses to let tradition do the explanatory heavy lifting.

Democracy in India survives not because it is old, but because it was ‘‘chosen early, chosen fully, and chosen against the odds’’.

If Shakespeare reminds us that ‘“the fault… is not in our stars, but in ourselves,”‘ Khilnani might add that India’s fate was not written in its past, but risked in its present.

One of the book’s most significant interventions lies in its re-reading of Indian nationalism. Nationalism, in Khilnani’s telling, was never a singular emotion or unified doctrine. It was an arena of argument. Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, Tagore—these figures did not agree on what India was or should be. What united them was not consensus, but a shared commitment to ‘‘institutionalizing disagreement’’.

This is where ‘The Idea of India’ begins to resemble a constitutional philosophy rather than a historical narrative. India’s unity was not cultural sameness but political accommodation. Its coherence came not from shared belief but from shared rules. Khilnani’s India is a republic held together by procedures, not passions.

Milton’s warning in ‘Paradise Lost’ feels eerily apt here: ‘“Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light.”‘ India’s path to democratic self-rule was neither smooth nor sanctified. It was procedural, slow, and profoundly unglamorous. And yet, it worked—often clumsily, often imperfectly, but persistently.

Khilnani’s prose reflects this temperament. He writes with restraint, resisting rhetorical excess. There are no purple passages mourning lost glory or celebrating civilizational destiny. Instead, there is careful calibration. His sentences move like constitutional clauses—measured, conditional, aware of unintended consequences. This stylistic moderation is itself ideological. It enacts the argument it makes.

Comparatively, if Bourdieu dissects the hidden grammar of social practice, Khilnani traces the fragile grammar of political imagination. If Bourdieu shows how power embeds itself in habitus, Khilnani shows how power restrains itself through institutions. One exposes domination; the other examines restraint. Together, they reveal two faces of modernity.

The book’s treatment of secularism is particularly incisive. Khilnani does not present Indian secularism as the absence of religion but as a ‘‘political technology’’ designed to manage deep plurality. It is not metaphysical neutrality but administrative pragmatism. This model does not seek to erase difference; it seeks to prevent difference from becoming destiny.

In Sanskritic terms, this echoes the ancient idea of ‘dharma’ not as belief, but as sustaining order—’dhāraṇāt dharmaḥ’. What holds, not what asserts. Khilnani’s secularism is less about conviction and more about coexistence.

The real brilliance of the book emerges in its handling of scale. India is not just diverse; it is enormous. Governing difference at this magnitude required inventing a politics that could function without intimacy. Democracy here is not an expression of closeness but a substitute for it. Where community fails, institutions must step in.

This is where Khilnani’s argument quietly intersects with postmodern skepticism. There is no grand narrative of unity here, no totalizing identity. India is not a story with a moral arc; it is a ‘‘framework for managing unresolved tensions’’.

The nation survives not because it resolves contradictions, but because it absorbs them.

And yet, Khilnani is no relativist. He does not dissolve politics into endless play. He insists on the moral seriousness of the Indian experiment. Universal adult franchise, adopted at independence, was not symbolic—it was revolutionary.

To trust a largely poor, illiterate population with political sovereignty was a wager without historical precedent.

Shakespeare’s line from ‘Julius Caesar’—’“Men at some time are masters of their fates”‘—resonates here with renewed force. India chose to be democratic before it was prosperous, secular before it was homogeneous, federal before it was integrated. These choices did not flow from tradition; they defied it.

Khilnani’s engagement with Nehru is especially nuanced. Nehru emerges neither as hero nor villain, but as a modernist grappling with impossible scale. His vision of India was statist, rationalist, future-oriented—and deeply anxious about fragmentation.

The institutions he championed were not expressions of cultural authenticity but safeguards against chaos.

Ambedkar, too, occupies a central moral position in the book—not as icon, but as constitutional realist. Ambedkar understood, perhaps more clearly than anyone, that democracy in India would not survive on sentiment. It needed law, enforcement, and the constant discipline of rights. Khilnani implicitly aligns himself with this hard-headed liberalism.

Tagore’s shadow also lingers. His suspicion of nationalism as moral intoxication finds quiet affirmation here. Khilnani’s India is not a civilization marching toward destiny; it is a republic negotiating survival.

This is where the book’s difficulty begins to emerge—not in comprehension, but in ‘‘ethical endurance’’. The reader is asked to give up easy pride. There is no catharsis, no triumphant arc. India’s story here is neither glorious nor tragic—it is contingent.

Postcolonial readers often look for redemptive narratives. Khilnani offers none. He replaces redemption with responsibility.

The book also resists closure. There is no final verdict on whether the Indian idea has succeeded or failed. That judgment is deliberately deferred. The idea of India, Khilnani insists, is not complete. It is perpetually under construction.

This open-endedness is its strength—and its discomfort.

Unlike ideological texts that age into dogma, ‘The Idea of India’ ages into relevance. Each political crisis, each constitutional strain, each eruption of identity politics makes its arguments sharper. The book does not predict events; it explains why such events are structurally possible.

In this sense, it resembles Shakespeare’s histories more than his tragedies. The drama lies not in downfall but in governance. Power here is not seized; it is managed, mismanaged, and renegotiated.

Milton’s line—’“Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war”‘—could serve as the book’s epigraph. India’s greatest achievement, Khilnani suggests, is not survival through force but survival through procedure.

And yet, this achievement is fragile. Institutions require belief to function. Once faith in rules erodes, the idea itself begins to fray. Khilnani does not sermonize this point. He trusts the reader to draw the implication—and that trust is demanding.

This is not a book that flatters. It does not reassure the reader of moral superiority or civilizational grandeur. It asks instead for vigilance, patience, and historical memory.

Now we arrive at the question that must conclude this reading.

‘‘Why is it tough? And even if it is, what makes this text worth reading time and again?’’

It is tough because it denies emotional shortcuts. It refuses nostalgia, myth, and righteous anger as explanatory tools. It demands that the reader think politically rather than culturally, institutionally rather than sentimentally. The difficulty lies in sustaining this discipline—to see India not as identity but as argument, not as inheritance but as responsibility.

Like Shakespeare’s Brutus, the reader must learn to act ‘“not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.”‘ Loving India, here, means subjecting it to critique.

And yet, it is worth returning to again and again because it sharpens moral perception without hardening it. Each rereading reveals new tensions between freedom and order, unity and plurality, faith and law. The book grows with history; it does not fossilize within it.

Like Milton’s epics or the Gita’s insistence on action without illusion, it trains the reader to inhabit complexity without fleeing into certainty.

‘Tough’, yes—but in its toughness lies its quiet generosity. It teaches how to think about a nation without turning it into a god, how to defend democracy without mythologizing it, and how to remain loyal to an idea precisely by refusing to sanctify it.

A modern classic and a must read.