Customer Reviews

The Idea of India

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

In an era that abounds with superficial books on South Asia, Khilnani's is an insightful and sensitive book, though perhaps somewhat out of sync (and this is not a criticism) with the contemporary Indian urban middle-class mood, which delights in denigrating all things perceived as "Nehruvian"; some of the other reviewers have categorized Khilnani as part of the "old school" of Indian historiographers, vaguely dismissed as "leftists"or "Nehruvians"; nothing could be further from the truth: while the book displays an empathy with Nehru's idea of India, it is far too sophisticated to accept that conception as anything more than one of a number of competing ideas, albeit one that has exercised great power over many in the country's urban elite. Hindutva is another such idea of India, and Khilnani offers a nuanced appraisal, far removed from both the fascistic infatuations of the right and the unthinking denunciations of those on the Indian left. Finally: the book is particularly useful on Indira Gandhi, and Khilnani persuasively links her "mass democratisation" of the late 1960's and 70's to the rise of both the saffron parties and the lower-caste mobilizations of the last fifteen years, though the most intellectually stimulating chapter remains the one on the architecture of the colonial city, conceptualized by Khilnani as, among others, the site where colonialism was acted out, the site, in other words, of the Indian's subjection.

These thoughtful and well-written essays explore some of the major trends in modern Indian politics. Khilnani is especially concerned about the emergence of religion- and caste-based "identity politics" and the growing tendency of the Indian state to resort to coercive measures as a means of containing political challenges; in this regard, he treats the populism and authoritarianism of Indira Gandhi as a watershed in modern Indian politics. Everything he writes is worth pondering, though some of the essays presume a considerable knowledge of Indian history.

I believe that this is one of the most intelligent and articulate books on Indian politics ever written. Sunil Khilnani, a professor of politics at Cambridge, brings unyielding subtlety and sophistication in a book which well matches the complexity and contradictions of Indian politics. He artfully demonstrates and corrects such simplistic and prevalent misconceptions as surrounding the nature and origins of India's early state-led industrialization or the nature of its democracy.

A somewhat longish extract will illustrate the subtleties of various concepts that the author elegantly develops in this magnificient work:

QUOTE In India, democracy has had to function in a society of peculiar complexity where many different temporal and historical plans coexist. Indian continues to be a predominantly agrarian society, whose people are not indifferent to religion, and where the individual does not have a strong political or social presence. But towering over that society today is the state. This state is far from supremely effective: it regulalry fails to protect its citizens against physical violence, it does not provide them with welfare, and it has not fulfilled its extensive ambitions to transform Indian society. Yet it is today at the very centre of the Indian political imagination. Until little over a century ago, the social order of caste had made the state largely redundant...The past fifty years have trenchantly displayed the powers of the state and of the idea of democracy to reconstitute the antique social identities of India - caste and religion - and to force them to face and enter politics.
UNQUOTE

If you have wondered why so many books have failed to effectively unravel and interpret the intricacies of political evolution of this entity called India, Khilnani's analysis will be a welcome eye opener.

This is a very elegantly written book, the writing style is nice. Khilnani is right about one thing - that the architect of India is Nehru who helped build a western democracy with good values and who strove through over 15 years as prime minister to cement it. This foundation has been good for India allowed everyone to participate and everyone to interact. Today, India is one country and free speech and freedom is an essential part of the fabric and for that, we have to thank Nehru undoubtedly and the other western educated leaders at independence.

But the book misses the point on the modern India of the last two decades. Khilnani tries to find deeper meaning in things that have little meaning. Hindutva was an ideology sold by Advani to sway the masses, nothing more. The BJP is floundering today because it has failed to provide quality governance and is unappealing to many who like India's multi pluralism. The Congress on the other hand provides the same poor governance but is more inclusive. His take on the likes of Deva Gowda and Mulayam working for their own constituences is misplaced - that has been happening from politicians all the time. Then there are the errors in facts - Deva Gowda never brought projects to Karnataka during the time he was PM.

And then there is this supposed endless passionate talk about who is an Indian. In 35 + years of living in India, I have never encountered such a discussion. We are who we are and we dont fret about subjects like who is the true Indian? Only arm chair reviewers like Khilnani do.

And the book misses the whole issue of now what? What do we do about corruption, lack of education, increasing crime, pollution? Whats the solution for India? Its obvious the political class are failing us. How do we get out of this quagmire? Can private initiatives do everything? Can there be a new political movement that can take over? Can the current leadership re-invent themselves?

There's been a spate of world class Indo-Anglian fiction over the last two decades (Salman Rushdie, Amitav Ghosh, Vikram Seth, Upamanyu Chatterjee, Vikram Chandra, Rohinton Mistry, Anita Desai... the list grows at an increasingly rapid pace). However, I've long lamented the dearth of (quality) non-fiction in the Indo-Anglian stable. The only notable book over the last decade that comes to mind is V.S. Naipaul's "India: a Million Mutinies Now." This paucity of decent non-fiction might explain why I was so taken with Sunil Khilnani's "The Idea of India". I found it absolutely riveting, so much so that I finished the book in one reading. This monograph is actually a collection of four essays on the following topics: "Democracy, Economics, Cities, and Who is an Indian?"

I have a confession to make. I read a lot (perhaps more than is good for me). And while I'm no evangelist, I think "The Idea of India" deserves a wide audience. This is not a full-fledged review, given current constraints of time. I definitely plan to revisit Khilnani at some point in the near future, for a more detailed analysis. For now, think of this as a "quick and dirty" recommendation, based on a casual first read.

For starters, "The Idea.." is rather well written -- elegant prose without any of the tendentious word tricks that a couple of other non-fiction South Asian writers seem so fond of. His writing is far removed from the simplistic clichés on India that are all too easy to come by, given the sheer complexity and diversity of the topics. Khilnani makes a heroic attempt to project (some of) the subtleties and shades of the issues under consideration, while maintaining a coherence and internal flow.

His essays are the product of a thoughtful mind, rather than a potted journalistic attempt to bring out something to sync with India's 50th Independence anniversary. Has quite a few incisive comments and penetrating insights, worthy of debate and discussion.

Also, Khilnani's done a fair amount of dogged research -- intensive as well as extensive.

On the flip side, on a couple of times Khilnani's conclusions seem a trifle flat. For instance, "Cities": lots of background material, fabulous research, and engaging perspectives on India's major cities: Bombay, Bangalore, Chandigarh, Ahmedabad and Delhi. However, the ending seemed a bit open-ended and dangling. Not to be crude, but I was left with the question: "OK, so the point is..?" For all the elegance, Khilnani's sentences at times seem a tad long, with a whole bunch of qualifiers and subclauses nested within. (Is this some form of South Asian Oxbridge tradition, perhaps? Witness Amit Chaudhuri & Salman Rushdie. Comments, anyone). Maybe I'm overly critical here, weaned as I've been on Russell and The Economist leaders. But would Khilnani have sacrificed the multi-shading that he so obviously is striving for, if he'd resorted to shorter, simpler sentences? A question to be tabled and explored in a fuller review. These quibbles of mine should in no way detract from the overall merits of Khilnani's effort. If you're looking for a good book on India, you could do worse than begin with "The Idea of India". Hopefully, this book will serve as the harbinger of more such quality non-fiction within the Indo-Anglian fold. After all, one would like to think that we deserve better stuff than the mishmash of a Shashi Tharoor (India: From Midnight to the Millennium) or the grating pretentiousness of a Gita Mehta (Snakes and Ladders).

Let me know what you think. I'd love to hear your take on this book. And on any other non-fiction of similar calibre.

The author uses keen observation and brilliant insights from the history of India to synthesize a personality for modern India. This is a book about India today. The past is studied only to gain insights into the present. Reading this book was a pleasure. Check it out!

The author tries to encapsulate the idea of India in five chapters:

Democracy (how this was possible in India, and in fact how democracy made India possible!);

Temples of the future (on growth after WW II);

Cities (and the role they play in changing India);

Who is an Indian (the most complicated of all chapters!)

The Garb of Modernity (on ongoing change)

A useful bibliographical essay completes this articulate book.

These are important aspects of what makes India, of course, but hardly the only ones and perhaps not the main ones. Most people in India still live in the countryside.

In my view the main drawback of the book is its excessive praise of Nehru. Yes he did keep India united after partition and preserved democracy but his autocratic economic planning delayed India's development, which really took off after the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty came to an end with Rajiv's resignation in 1989 and assassination in 1991.

In any case, there can hardly be any such thing as "the" idea of India. A better title might have been "One Idea of India".

I like Sunil Khilnani's philosophical and historical approach to the idea of India. His in-depth studies of the concept of "India" are thoughtfully done. Rather than judging one view as better or more complete than other, Khilnani simply lays the concepts on the table.

The ideas of both 19th century Indian and European historians, the politicians Gandhi, Nehru, and Jinnah, Bal Thackeray's followers, and others, plus the thoughts of modern Indians educated both at home and abroad, are there to think about and learn from.

Khilnani ends his book with a quote by Rabindranath Tagore: "A country is not territorial, but ideational," following it with a slogan from the tourism board's poster, "India is a state of mind."

I especially liked this book because it made me think bigger thoughts. As I read it occurred to me that studying the successes and failures of the nation of India would be a good lesson for the EU, which is also composed of many similar but disparate people striving to work together.

Some books are good to read in pairs. This one would be good to read immediately before reading "Imagining India" by Nilekani.The books were written ten years apart and, like Lego blocks,they neatly fit together.

Kim Burdick
Stanton, Delaware

India, as many misty eyed Indians might claim is a great culture. These idiot savants espouse the greatness of Aryan India: Vedic culture etc., the glorious Hindu period, Buddha, Aryhabhatta, and the Indus Civilization. What these half wits are unwilling to admit is that to define India is a feat by itself. Thus,I would argue along with the author,is that the Persians (Taj Mahal and the ghazals), the Arabic invasions (architecture) and the English Empire (English, railways and National Unity) are all part of India as their Hindu and pre-Hindu predecessors. I applaud Khilnani for willing to engage his readers in such contentious topics such as the definition of India and the paradox of India as the largest democracy and its caste system. How can a country with a large population subjugated by poverty also have a contender with Hollywood for a place in the entertainment world. Indeed,is democracy right for India? Are countries like China,India and Russia best suited for governments with authoritarian tendencies? Would India have been better if Nehru had not imposed Stalinist ideology on a primarily agrarian society? Would India be better off not as a single entity called India but Nation states with self-governing bodies like the United States? Would the South be better off as a partition than having an alien culture rule it? Finally, what is an Indian? Is it a South Indian Brahmin, a Kashmiri, a Sudra, a Sikh, a Malyalee or a tribal person from the Andaman and Nicobar islands? Read this book. Khilnani provokes one, especially those in the West (who think that every Indian is a disciple of Ghandhi's principles) and those of the nationalistic persuasion (BJP and the whole wretched lot) to examine of what India means as a nation state.

We can only wish that Khilnani had not depended so much on schoolbook ideas of India that the Marxists and liberal scholarship has peddled for the last half century. Khilnani is unable to understand contemporary movements of change. Ultimately, his book fails to illumine the notion of India.