The Idea of India
Sunil Khilnani (1997, 2003; 263pp)
A Summary
Introductionto2003Edition
BroadlytherehavebeentwodescriptionsofIndianhistory.OneseesIndiaasthe
victimofrecurringinvasions,itshistoryaseriesofrudeinterruptionsthatviolate
thepurityofa‘sacredland’.TheotherviewsIndiaasanarenaofcivilizational
encountersbetweenunequalprotagonists,andcelebratesthemongrelcharacterof
India’speoplesandhistories.Insteadofhankeringforpurity,itseesthemomentsof
mixtureasthemostcreativeandimaginativeones.Itinsiststhatwhatwas
distinctiveaboutIndia’spastwasitsabilitytotransforminvasioninto
accommodation,ruptureintocontinuity,divisionintodiversity.(Pgxi-xii)
ThefoundingideaofIndiawasneversimplyacommitmenttoabstractideasof
pluralityanddemocracy;ratheritwasrootedinapracticalunderstandingofthe
compulsionsandconstraintsofIndianpolitics.Indiansareaself-interestedlot,
whoseself-interestallowsthemtomakecompromisesandaccommodations,and
democracyiswell-suitedforthesame.Largerepublicswithdiverseandconflicting
interestscanbeabetterhomeforliberty,asaferhavenfortyranny,than
homogenousandexclusiveones.Withinthem,factionsanddifferencescancheck
oneanother,moderatingideologicalfervourandsofteningpower.(Pgxiii)
OfthemanyideasofIndia,thisonemakesthecaseforoneinparticular,becauseitis
theonlyonethatcanenableotherideastoemerge,andallowthemtolearntolove
alongsideoneanother.(Pgxv)
Introduction:IdeasofIndia
ThehistoryofindependentIndiacanbevisualizedintermsofthreeperspectives.
One,asthehistoryofastate-apoor,large,extremelydiversecreation,andthe
shiftingofauthorityfromseverallocalheadstoasinglesovereignagency.Two,as
theadventureofapoliticalidea:democracy,andthegrandexperimentofproviding
half-a-billionpoor,illiteratepeopleaccesstothesameelectoralpowersastheir
richer,educatedcounterparts.Third,astheconfrontationofanancientcivilization,
somewhatintricatelydesignedwiththespecificpurposeofperpetuatingitselfasa
society,withmodernity.(Pg3-5)
@sajithpai
1
ThepossibilitythatIndiacouldbeunited,andtheideaofIndiaitself,wasthewager
ofamodern,urbanelitewhohadnosinglecleardefinitionofthisidea,andoften
entertaineddiversecontentingvisionsofIndia(Pg5-6).
Intheyearspostindependence,thenationalistvisionwasdominatedbythevision
mostcloselyassociatedwithNehru.Nehru,whowishedtomodernizeIndia,found
thattheprocessofmodernitydidnotalwayskeeptothescript.Thegarbof
modernity,ashetermedit,hasnotproveduniform,andIndianshavefoundmany
ingeniouswaysofwearingit.(Pg8-9)
Thethreadthatrunsthroughthebook,andthefourchaptersthatconstituteit,isa
concernwithpolitics,manifestedthroughdemocracy.Politicsisattheheartof
India’spassagetoandexperiencewithmodernity.Indiadoesnotmerelyhave
politicsbutisactuallyconstitutedbyit.Onceasocietystructuredbystablecaste
hierarchieswherepoliticshadzerofunction,Indiaistodaythemostintensely
politicalsocietyintheworld,withpoliticsatoncedividingitandconstitutingitasa
single,shared,crowdedspace.Thisisaboveallduetothepresenceof
democracy.(Pg9)
RemarkablehowdemocracytakenrootinIndiadespitesomuchstackedagainstit-
poverty,hugediversity,asocietyrootedininequalityandthelackofastrong
conceptofanationstate?WhiledemocracyhaswildlysucceededinIndia,italso
risksbecomingmajoritarianismoftheHindumajority.(Pg10)
Nehru’sideaofIndiasoughttocoordinatewithintheformofamodernstate,a
varietyofvalues:democracy,religioustolerance,economicdevelopmentand
culturalpluralism.Theunexpectedhistoricaltrajectoriesofthesecomponentshas
changedtheoriginalideaofIndiaitself,sincehowitwasdefinedbyNehruandhis
peers.NowseveralcompetingvisionsforIndiapropagate-thesestrugglesare
essentiallytheideaofIndia’shistorysince1947.Andinitsabilitytoconstantly
encompassdiverseideasofwhatIndiais,thishistoryisitselfexpressiveofthe
Indianidea.(Pg12-13)
EssayOne:Democracy
Inpre-colonialIndia,powerwasnotembodiedintheconceptofastate,whether
republicanorabsolutebutintheconceptofsocialordermanifestedthroughthe
castesystem(jati)(Pg17-18).
Thecastesystemdidnotconcentratestatus,wealthandpowerexclusivelyinone
socialgroupbutdistributedthemtodifferentpartsofthesocialorder,withthe
resultthatnoonesocialgroupcouldimposeitswillonthewholesociety.(Pg19).
Theprevalenceofcommonreligiousmotifs,beliefs,mythsarosenotduetoany
politicalauthoritybutduetothemonopolyofliteracyvestedinBrahmins.Itmade
itselfpowerfulbyrenouncingpowerandbyallowingavarietyofdiversereligous
@sajithpai
2
beliefsandobservancestoemerge,andbyemergingasinterpretersofritualsand
lawsforthecommunity.(Pg19).
Suchasocietywaseasytorule,butdifficulttochange:anewrulerhadmerelyto
capturethesymbolicseatofpowerandgoonrulingasthosebeforehimhaddone.
Indiacouldbedefeatedeasily,butthesocietyitselfremainedunconqueredand
unchanged.(Pg20)
Theforeignrulers,especiallytheBritishbroughtwiththemaconceptofthestate,
thatdrasticallychangedideasaboutpowerinIndia.Theygraduallybutdecisively
definedpowerinpoliticaltermsandlocateditinasovereigncentralstate.Theyalso
intervenedinsocialpracticessuchasbanningSati,andcreatedalocalelite(‘aclass
ofpersonsIndianincolourandbloodbutEnglishintastes,inopinions,inmorals
andinintellect’-ThomasMacaulay)(Page22-23).
Overtime,Britishrule,bywideningthestate’sinterventionsintoIndiansocietyand
byencouragingrepresentativepolitics,createdspaceforastrongstateand
democraticpoliticstotakeroot.
TheIndianconstitution,promulgatedin1950implantedtwofundamentallinesof
tensioninIndia’spolitics-thefirstbetweenpowersofthecentreandthatofthe
states(akeytrendatplaysinceindependencehasbeenthecentregradually
usurpingmoreandmoredecision-makingpowerawayfromthestates),andthe
secondbeingthepushforuniversalrightsvstheneedforsocialredressalto
historicallymarginalizedcommunities(backwardcastes,tribes)(Pg37-39)
ThetruehistoricalsuccessofNehru’srolelayinitsestablishmentofthestateatthe
coreofIndia’ssociety-onetransformedfromanalienobjecttoonethataspiresto
infiltrateeverydaylivesofIndians.Thestateetcheditselfintotheimaginationof
Indiathatnopreviouspoliticalagencyhaddone.(Pg41)
AfterNehru’sdeath,thelong-termhistoricalcentralizationofpoweraccelerated
underIndiraGandhi.Throughtheseyearselectionsgainedinimportance,andthe
levelofturnoutsrose.Andasdemocraticpoliticsledtoidentity-creationand
interestpeddlingprimarilythroughtheemergenceofnewcasteandregionalblocs,
conflictsandthusviolencetoobegantoincrease.(Pg50)
Thecontinuingabsorptionofpowersbythestate,andnon-accomodationof
grievancesofregions-infactthereisnowayfortheirvoicetobeheardinfederal,
representativepolitics-hasledtoconflictsbetweenIndianregionsandstate
(Kashmir,PunjabandNagalandetc.)(Pg52)
Inanymoderndemocracyelectionsarepartofalargersetofrulesandpractices
designedtoauthorizethestate,butinIndiatheyarecarryingtheentireburden.The
meaningofdemocracyinIndiahasbeennarrowedtosignifyonlyelections.(Pg58)
@sajithpai
3
Thepast50yearshavetrenchantlydisplayedthepowersofthestate,andoftheidea
ofdemocracytoreconstitutetheantiquesocialidentitiesofIndia-casteand
religion-andforcethemtofaceandtoenterpolitics.Buttheidentitiesofcasteand
religionhavealsobentthedemocraticideatotheirownpurpose.(Pg59)
ThenewidentitiesofOBC,SCetcmakenosenseinthetraditionlanguageofcasteor
religionbutbeartheheavyburdenofmodernpoliticsandlaw.TheconflictsinIndia
todayaretheconflictsofmodernpolitics;theyconcernthestate,accesstoitandto
whomitultimatelybelongs.Withinashorttime,Indianhasmovedfrombeinga
societywherethestatehadformostpeopleadistantprofileandlimited
responsibilities,andwhereonlyafewhadaccesstoit,toonewherestate
responsibilitieshaveswollenandeveryonecanimagineexercisingsomeinfluence
uponit.(Pg59-60).
EssayTwo:TemplesoftheFuture
Indiannationalistshadrarelyconcernedthemselveswiththoughtsoneconomic
management.Mostbelievedthatwiththeendofcolonialrule,economicdeprivation
wouldcease.Anotherstrandofbeliefwasthatindustrializationhaddelivered
prosperitytothewestandthiswouldhappeninIndiatoo.(Pg64-65)
LordCanning-“IwouldrathergovernIndiawith40,000Britishtroopswithoutan
incometaxthangovernitwith100,000troopswithsuchatax.”(thiswassaidjust
after1857uprising).Revenuesfromdirecttaxationwasalwayslowduringthe
BritishRaj.Wealthwasprimarilyaccumulatedbycurrencymanipulationand
balanceofpayments.VerylittleproductiveinvestmenthappenedintoIndia.(Pg67)
DadabhaiNaoroji’sdraintheoryhadapowerfulinfluenceontheeconomic
philosophythatdevelopedlater,engrainingafearaboutthefragilityofIndia’s
economicinterestsinanopeninternationaleconomy.(Pg68-69)
3contrastingvisionsforeconomicdevelopmentin1930sand‘40s.
• BombayPlanstressingconsumerindustries-leddevelopment
• Techocrat/Planning-leddevelopment
• AviewfromCongress’sleftflankstressingredistributionbutnorealpolicy
advice(Gandhi’sinfluencereignedhere)(Pg70-71)
Nehru(andBose)preferredafocusonheavyindustries(keyormotherindustries),
whichtheysaidwereessentialtobuildotherindustries.Hesawconsumer
industriesasadistractionfromthelargertaskofpushingIndiatowardsan
independentindustrialfuture.(Pg72)
The1930sand‘40ssawaconflictbetweenindustrializersandGandhians,who
wantedtheCongresstocommittostateownershipofkeyindustriesandservices,
anddeclarethatitwouldonlysupportvillageandcottageindustries(Pg73).
@sajithpai
4
Theindustrializerslostouttotheagrarianblocledbythezamindarsandruralrich,
asthecompulsionsofelectoralprocesstookhold(1936-37polls).Thelatterwasin
apositiontodeliverthelargeruralblocofvoters,andcarriedtheday.Theywerent
tookeenonindustrialization.(Pg74)
TheCongress’characterasamasspartywithstrongrootsinthecountrysidetook
shapeinthe‘30s.Thisledtothewhittlingdownoflandreforms,dilutionofthe
emphasisonindustrializationetc.Inthe‘30sCongress,thebasicdilemmaof
independentIndia’spursuitofeconomicdevelopmentwaspresaged.Inacountry
wherethegreatweightofnumbers,andconsiderablewealth,layinthecountryside,
therewererelativelyfewpressurestoindustrialize,stilllesstoredistributeorto
effectsocialreforms(Pg74-75)
WhileNehrudidnotbelieveinMarxism/Communism,hedidbelievethatMarx’s
viewsonimperialism,ofthecolonizerexploitingthecolonisedwasright;post1947,
hedidnotwantIndiatobetoodependentonforeigncapital.Nehruthussawalarge
publicsectorasnotonlystandinginforlowerlevelsofforeigninvestmentbutalso
asacounterweighttoprivatesector(inKeynesianterms).Givenlowlevelsof
taxation,andnotaxonagriculture,hesawmoneygeneratedbyaproductivepublic
sectorbeingusedforredistributionandreinvestment.TheIndianpublicsectorthus
hadredistributiveunderpinnings,andissomewhatwronglyassociatedwithSoviet
influence.(Pg76-77)
Landreforms-redistributinglandtothetillerortenant,whosefamilyhadfarmedit
forgenerationswasnotexecutedeffectively.Congresswasdependingonrural
votes,whichcouldbedeliveredbyzamindarswhocontrolledthetenants,and
thereforedidnotwanttoriskupsettingthem.Theexecutionwasinthehandsof
provinciallegislaturesdominatedbylandedinterests,whonaturallystoppeditfrom
goingthrough.(Pg78-79)
Oneconomicissues,NehrusubordinatedthecivilservicetothePlanning
Commission.Thiswasessentiallyapoolof~20members,ofwhichhalfwere
consistentlyprominent.ThePlanningCommission,ledbyPCMahalanobiswasa
powerfulbodyintheNehruvianera,wieldingpoliticalandnotjusteconomic
authority.Formulationofeconomicpolicymovedfromparliament,andcabinetto
thePlanningCommission(Pg81-82)
TherewasgreatoptimismintheNehruvianerathattheeconomycouldbesubjected
toconscioushumancontrolandaction.Inpractice,Nehru’sdevelopmentalstrategy
deliveredmoderategrowth,butpreserveditsdemocraticlegitimacy(unlikeinEast
Asia,itdidnothavetotradedemocracyfordevelopment),andmaintainedeconomic
stabilitythroughprudentfiscalmanagement.(Pg88-89)
UnderIndiraGandhi,andsubsequentleaderstill’89,fiscalmanagementgotashort
shrift-thestatemadeitselftothedemandsofthosesuccessfulenoughtoget
themselvesrepresented,includingrichfarmers(‘bullockcapitalists’,whobenefited
@sajithpai
5
fromtheGreenRevolution),managerelitesandlabourunionsinpublicsector,
Mumbai’sindustrialistswhowantedpermitsandlicensesetc.
EconomicpopulismgotafreereinunderIndiraGandhi,includingabolishmentof
privypurses,nationalizationofbanksandtextilemillsetc.Howevertherewasalso
nosignificantinflation(orrecession)orincreaseinpublicdebt,whichfewnew
nationshavemanaged.Thiswasthankstotheprudentfiscalmanagementinherited
fromtheRaj.(Pg90-93)
Thelackofanyinternalfederalismintoday’scongress-historicallythemeansby
whichdemandsbyregionsaswellasculturalgroupscouldbebartered-andthe
collapseofplanningmeanthattheIndianstateiswithoutagreedprinciplesand
mechanismstoadjudicateclaimsrelatingtoallocationofresources-riverwaters,
reservationsetc.(Pg103)
Theabsenceofacommandingnationalpartythatcanstipulatedecisiveeconomic
goalsmaytemporarilyreturnpowertothetechnocrats,butthevoiceispassing
fromintellectualstothedemos-thepowerful,theaspiringandtheexcluded,who
havetheirownideasofwhatdevelopmentisandhowitshouldbe.(Pg106)
EssayThree:Cities
ModernIndia’spoliticalandeconomicexperienceshavecoincidedmost
dramaticallyinitscities-symbolsoftheuneven,hecticandcontradictorycharacter
ofthenation’smodernlife.(Pg11)
Indiancitiesarealsotheatreswherethecontradictions(suchascosmopolitanismvs
parochialismetc)intheIndianrepublicplaysoutmoststarkly.Theexperiencethat
urbandenizenshavehadinthecityhasalteredbeliefs,generatednewpoliticsand
madethecitiesdramaticscenesofIndiandemocracy:placeswheretheideaofIndia
isbeingdisputedanddefinedanew.(Pg109).
ThemajorcitiesinIndiaareeithertheproductofcolonialismorripostestoit.(Pg
110)
Ahmedabadwasthe1stmoderncitycreatedbyIndians.(Pg114)
TheBritishcreated2kindsofcities-the3bigportcitiesofBombay,Calcuttaand
Madras;andthecantonmentcitiesacrossmanytownssuchasBangalore,Agraetc,
culminatingultimatelyinNewDelhi.(Pg111)
HistoricallyinIndia,theconjunctionofeconomicandpoliticalpowerwasrare.
Calcuttaperhapsistheonlyexception.(Pg114)
@sajithpai
6
NewDelhiwasplannedtolettheIndian'seeforthefirsttimethepowerofWestern
science,artandcivilization’(LordStamfordham).NewDelhiwasasublimefantasy
ofimperialcontrolovertheboundariesanddefinitionofurbanspace.(Pg121-2)
ThechapterexploreshowNewDelhi,Chandigarh,BombayandBangalorehaveseen
theideaofIndiaplayoutsinceindependence.
EssayFour:WhoisanIndian?
InIndiathesenseofregionalidentity(Bengal,Maharashtraetc)onlycameinto
beingasIndianstriedtodefineanationalidentity.Indiannationalismdidnotunite
andsubordinateestablishedregionalidentities.Asenseofnationandregion
emergedtogether,throughparallelself-definitions.(Pg153)
Indiannationalismreallyemergedasaresponsetocolonialism,astheideaofIndia
asageographicalunitaroseonlywiththeBritishRaj,whounifieditfromamotley
bunchofempires.Thisnationalismtookthreebroadnarrativearcs.Thefirst,best
espousedbyVinayakDamaodarSavarkar,sawIndiannationalismintermsofa
commonculturederivedfromHindureligion.ThesecondledbyGandhididseean
influenceofreligionbutinapluralisticandsecularsense.Thethird,espousedby
Nehru,turnedawayfromreligionanddiscoveredabasisforunityinashared
historicalpastofculturalmixing.(Pg154)
Whatmadepossibletheself-inventionofanationalcommunitywasthefactofalien
conquestandcolonialsubjugation.ItwastheBritishinterestindetermining
geographicalboundariesthatbyanactofparliamentin1899converted‘India’from
thenameofaculturalregionintoapreciseterritory.(Pg155)
Nehru’sregimewasabletoinstallalayeredpluralisticdefinitionofIndianness,one
whichhesawastheendculminationofamillenniaofhistoricalmixingandcultural
fusion.UnlikeGermanorItaliannationalismwhichsawthestateastheresponseor
resultofthestruggletowardsacommonethnicidentity,NehrufeltthatIndian
nationalismandanIndianidentitycouldonlyemergewithintheterritorialand
institutionalframeworkofastate.ThisNehruvianmodelprotectedandcelebrated
linguistic,religiousandculturaldifferences,ratherthanimposingauniform
Indianness.Nehru’smodelalsosawcolonialismashavingaddedthelayerof
modernitytotheancientIndianpalimpsest(seequotebelow),asopposedtoother
modelswhichsawcolonialismasadefilingofIndianidentity.(Pg166)
“Shewaslikesomeancientpalimpsestonwhichlayeruponlayerofthoughtand
reveriehadbeeninscribed,andyetnosucceedinglayerhadcompletelyhiddenor
erasedwhathadbeenwrittenpreviously.Allofthesehadexistedinourconscious
orsubconsciousselves,thoughwemaynothavebeenawareofthem.Andtheyhave
gonetobuildupthecomplexmysteriouspersonalityofIndia.”-Nehru,The
DiscoveryofIndia.
@sajithpai
7
InNehru’sIndia,Indiannesswasnotdefinedasasingularorexhaustiveidentity,but
onewhichrecognizedlinguisticandculturalmarkers.ThislayeredIndianness
meantasinglemajoritariandefinitionofIndiannesscouldn’temerge.(Pg175).
WithintwodecadesofNehru’sdeath,thenationalismthathehadwovenintobeing
wasindifficulty,impactedbyCongress’sowntransitionfromafederalparty(which
balancedregionalpullsandpressuresthroughinternalbargaining,thereby
restrictingcasteandreligiousgroupingstolocallevels)toamassparty,where
nationalleadersdirectlyappealedtopeopleasmembersofaparticularcommunity,
therebybringingcasteismandreligiousidentitiestothenationalstage.(Pg179-80)
ThecrisisofCongressbecameacrisisofthestateitself.Alongwiththeearlier
transitiontoamassparty,therewasalsocentralizationofpowers.Thisweakened
theirregionalroots,andnolongerallowedregionaldemandstopushthrough,
leadingtorisingirritationlevelsagainstthestate-suchasthe80s/90sPunjab,
Kashmiragitation.(Pg185).
ThefundamentaldebateinIndianpoliticalandintellectuallifeinthe1980sand‘90s
aboutthecrisisofsecularismhastendedtoskirtaroundthedepthofBJPandthe
SanghParivar’sdesiretoreformtheconstitutionandimposeauniformcivilcode,
especiallyonregulatingMuslimpersonallaw.Thepluralisticnationalismoutlined
after1947wascertainlyinformedbythelanguageofwesternconstitutionaltheory
butwasaccompaniedbyrelativelylimitedinterferenceinthesociety’sreligious
practices.ThepoliticalproposalsofHindunationalismveerawayfromthis
historicalpattern:theyhopetobringthearrayofIndianreligiousandcultural
activitiesundercommandofthestate.TheHindunationalistaspirationtoredefine
Indiannessalwayspresumedtheavailabilityofastrongstateastheinstrument
throughwhichtoforgeanidentity.(Pg189-90)
Thepoliticalmomentumoflower-casteandregionalpartiesisthesinglebiggest
obstacletonationalistHinduambitions.MostregionalistideasofIndiaareplural
ratherthanshared,shapedbythelegaciesofdifferentcolonialpastsandvaried
experiencesofpoliticalruleandeconomicdevelopment.Themostspectacular
instancesofregionalismhavebeentheviolentseparatistmovementsofthe1980s
and‘90s,whichproposedadissolutionoftheIndianidea.(Pg191)
AsecondtypeofregionalistideaofIndiahasacquiredprominencerecentlysince
thedevolutionofsomeeconomicpowersfromthecentralstate.Politicianssuchas
LalooYadav,MulayamSinghYadav,DeveGowdaallhavetheirowndistinct
regionalistperspective.TheydonotdreamofdissolvingtheIndianunion,but
neitherdotheyproposeacoherentideaofanIndianidentity.Theyseetheeconomy
asaclusterofregionalunits-eachseekingtomaximizebenefitsattheexpenseof
others-ratherthanasaunifiednationaleconomy.(Pg192)
Butpotentiallythemostfar-reachingconsequenceofthisnewregionalismlie
squarelyintheculturalrealm.India’sregionalpoliticianshaveessentiallyparochial
@sajithpai
8
views,andtheyaredevotedtocultivatingtheirownvernaculargardens.The
developmentsofthe1990sasanemergentculturalpatternmarkaseriousrupture
withtheideaofalayeredIndianpoliticalidentity.Yetwhatisstrikingisthatafter
fiftyyearsofpoliticalfreedomisthedepthandextentofthecommitmenttotheidea
ofIndia.(Pg193)
BritishdominationhelpedtocreatetheopportunitiesforIndianstoacquirea
modernself,apoliticalidentityguaranteedbyastate.AfterfiftyyearsofanIndian
state,thedefinitionofwhoisanIndianisaspassionatelycontestedasever.What
haskeptitincontestisthepresenceofthestatewhoseaccesstoresourcesmakesit
arealprize,andthepersistenceofdemocraticpolitics,whichhaskeptmostpeople
inthegameforthisprize.Thecontestisovereconomicopportunitiesandabout
culturalrecognition:itisacontestforownershipofthestate.Theintensityofthat
conflictcanbeseeninthedizzyingassortmentofclaimsuponthatstate.Acceptance
ofthisproliferatingdiversityandthecapacitytolivewithitareforIndians
pragmaticnecessities.India’shistoryshowstwobroadpossibilitiesofdealingwith
thatdiversity:atheoreticallyuntidy,improvising,pluralistapproach,oraneatly
rationalistandpurifyingexclusivism.India’shistoryhasforthefirsttimeinallits
millennialdepth,giventhepresentgenerationofIndianstheresponsibilityto
choosebetweenthem.(Pg195)
Epilogue:TheGarbofModernity
PartitionistheunspeakablesadnessattheheartoftheideaofIndia:amemento
morithatwhatmadeIndiapossiblealsodiminishedtheintegralvalueoftheidea.
Like1789fortheFrench,partitionisthemomentoftheIndiannation’sorigin
throughviolentrupturewithitself.Whatexactlywasdone?Wasitthedivisionof
oneterritorybetweentwo‘nations’orpeoples?Orthebreakingofonecivilization
intotwoterritories?(Pg200-02)
Partitionemergedoutofaconflictoverthestate:aconflictaboutwhetherasingle
successorstateoughttoacquiretherightfulauthoritytoenforceitsjudgements
overtheentirepopulationandterritoryleftbytheRaj.Forthosewhowishedto
separateandestablishtheirownstate,thepromiseofpartitionwasthepromiseofa
statemadelessalien.Muslimseparatistswereledbythedesiretoreducethe
impersonalityofthemodernstate.Sincetheeighteenthcentury,alleffortstomake
thestatelessimpersonalhaveinvokedtheideaofthenation:aformofsolidarity
usuallyspecifiedintermsofacommonreligion,language,culture,raceorhistory.
Thisisofcourseafictive,spuriousperceptionyetnomodernideahasmanagedto
summonupstronger,iferratic,feelingsofidentificationwiththealienapparatusof
thestate.(Pg202-03)
Themodernstateisbydefinitionimpersonal,anditneedstoremainthatwayifitis
tobeastateatall.Itisanalien,unnnaturalentitybutitalsooffersitssubjects
protections,notjustofphysicalandmaterialsecuritybutalsooftheircitizen’s
identities.Theambitiontoridoneselfofthestateorthemisdirecteddesiretoblend
@sajithpai
9
thestatewiththeidentityofallorsomeoverwhomitrules:tomakeitthestateofa
singularreligion,cultureorethnosisaforlornone.Theonlyambitionistomakethe
statesmoretrustworthytoallwhomustliveunderthem,andcivilizedintheir
dealingswiththeircitizens.Inthis,themodelofconstitutionaldemocracyhas
provedthemostreliableandeffectiveinstrumentavailabletomodernpopulations.
(Pg203-05)
WhathasmadedemocracyviableinIndiaisnotsimplytheappealoftheideaor
economicsuccessofthenationunderdemocracy.Ratherithasbeenthecontinuous
stabilityofthestatethathasbeenessentialtoIndia’sdemocracy.Thisstabilityrests
oncounteringexternalthreats,whichareusuallysporadicandintermittent,and
successfuleconomicperformance,assessedintermsofgrowthanddistribution,and
adroitlynavigatingtheopportunitiesandhazardsoftheinternationalmarketplace.
Butultimately,theviability,andmostimportantly,thepointofIndia’sdemocracy
willrestonitscapacitytosustaininternaldiversity,toavoidgivingreasontogroups
withinthecitizenbodytoharbourdreamsofhavingtheirownexclusivenation
states.Thereisnoideologicalorculturalguaranteeforanationtoholdtogether.It
justdependsonhumanskills.Thisiswhypoliticsasanarenawheredifferent
projectsareproposedanddecidedforandagainst,hasneverbeenmoreimportant
forIndians.(Pg205-07)
India’sexperiencerevealstheordinarinessofdemocracy-untidy,massively
complex,unsatisfying,butvitaltothesenseofahumanlifetoday.Itestablishesthat
historicalandculturalinnocencedonotexcludeAsianculturesfromtheideaof
democracy.Theseculturesarenottailor-madefordemocracy.Itwillalwaysbea
warystruggle,butforadvocatesofdemocracy,democracy’spersistenceinIndiaisa
basisofhope.(Pg207)
@sajithpai
10