What do you understand by ‘Idea of India’ as a ‘Nation’
Introduction
The Idea of
India is a 1997 non-fiction book by Sunil Khilnani, which describes the
economic and political history of India in the fifty years since Partition. It
focuses in particular on the role that the national ideal of democracy has
played in India's evolution. The book is also noted for its treatment of the
personality and actions of Jawaharlal Nehru in the development of the country.
Journalist Ian Jack described this book, and its description of the
"intellectual foundations" of the modern Indian state, as
"indispensable" reading. The significant changes in the social
composition of India’s ruling class since Independence, both in politics and in
the bureaucracy, are proof of democracy at work Amid India’s myriad problems,
it is democracy that has given Indians of every imaginable caste, creed,
culture, and cause the chance to break free of their lot. Another Independence
Day is upon us. As we celebrate our 73rd birthday, it is again time to reflect
on what kind of country we are.
India, I
have long argued, is more than the sum of its contradictions. It is a country
held together, in the words of Nehru, “by strong but invisible threads … a myth
and an idea, a dream and a vision, and yet very real and present and
pervasive”. That nebulous quality is what the analyst of Indian nationalism is
ultimately left with; to borrow a phrase from Amartya Sen, it is an idea — the
idea of India. But what is that idea? Jawaharlal Nehru articulated it as
pluralism vindicated by history, seeing the country as an “ancient palimpsest”
on which successive rulers and subjects had inscribed their visions without
erasing what had been asserted previously.
‘Idea of India’ as a ‘Nation
A generation
of secular nationalists echoed him, making “unity in diversity” the most
hallowed of independent India’s self-defining slogans. Their secularism is
questioned today by a new ruling dispensation that has sought to redefine nationalism
in more sectarian terms. How did India preserve and protect a viable idea of
itself in the course of the last 73 years, while it grew from 370 million
people to 1.2 billion, reorganised its State structures, and sought to defend
itself from internal and external dangers, all the while remaining democratic?
I have tried to answer this question at length in my books. Certainly, the
accomplishment is extraordinary, and worthy of celebration.
Amid India’s
myriad problems, it is democracy that has given Indians of every imaginable
caste, creed, culture, and cause the chance to break free of their lot. There
is social oppression and caste tyranny, particularly in rural India, but Indian
democracy offers the victims a means of escape, and often — thanks to the
determination with which the poor and oppressed exercise their franchise — of
triumph. The significant changes in the social composition of India’s ruling
class since Independence, both in politics and in the bureaucracy, are proof of
democracy at work, but the poor quality of our country’s politics in general
offers less cause for celebration.
Amid India’s
myriad problems, it is democracy that has given Indians of every imaginable
caste, creed, culture, and cause the chance to break free of their lot. There
is social oppression and caste tyranny, particularly in rural India, but Indian
democracy offers the victims a means of escape, and often — thanks to the
determination with which the poor and oppressed exercise their franchise — of
triumph. The significant changes in the social composition of India’s ruling
class since Independence, both in politics and in the bureaucracy, are proof of
democracy at work, but the poor quality of our country’s politics in general
offers less cause for celebration.
In the seven decades since Independence, democracy has failed to create a single political community. Instead, we have become more conscious than ever of what divides us: religion, region, caste, language, and ethnicity. Despite having a one-party majority in the Lok Sabha, our political system has in fact become more fragmented: politicians mobilise support along ever-narrower lines of political identity. It has become more important to be a “backward caste”, a “tribal”, a Muslim, a gau rakshak, than to be an Indian; and of course, to some, it is more important to be a “proud” Hindu than to be an Indian.
For More Answers Get Solved PDF WhatsApp – 8130208920
0 comments:
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.