PDF | A national and, to a great extent, global consensus on India that has got built over the years is that the post- colonial India is a story of success of. Indian Ideology—deliberately titled in allusion to Karl Marx's writings on his own country—is Perry Anderson's most sustained engagement with the recent. The Indian Ideology is a book by the British Marxist historian Perry Anderson, published . Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version.
|Language:||English, Japanese, Dutch|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|ePub File Size:||19.80 MB|
|PDF File Size:||12.11 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
1 Perry Anderson is an eminent and worthily acclaimed historian of medieval and mod- ern Europe and a man of prodigious learning. So it is a matter of some. The Indian Ideology [Perry Anderson] on computerescue.info *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Today, the Indian state claims to possess a harmonious territorial. By Perry Anderson. Second Enlarged Edition; September ; vi, ; x in; For Sale in South Asia Only. Paperback.
Even if that may be the case, it looks highly unreasonable to argue that 5 million people can be unwillingly held against their wishes on the basis of a single signature or document by a person who hardly had any concern for the same people.
Fearing that India will lose the officially announced plebiscite, it was never conducted. In the service of national interest New Delhi time and again tolerated and shamelessly encouraged the corrupt governments in Kashmir.
The things have in fact moved from bad to worse with no improvement in sight in the near future.
Follow the Author
Raj system bureaucracy, corruption, first-past the-post electoral system, an excuse for strong government that actually helped Congress every time, political subterfuge in Kashmir and the North East, minorities ignored, Congress tuned to needs of rich farmers, traders and urban professionals, poor record in education, health and more. But what then kept India from disintegration.
For Anderson, caste has become the enabling condition of democracy. One need not to sideline what happened in North East. The repression in North East is even more appalling if one goes into the brutalities done under the garb of Armed Forces Special Powers Act — a repressive piece of legislation enacted in Add to it the events of the border dispute with China which according to Anderson was never settled during British Raj.
Lack of historical common sense on part of Nehru led to the heavy damage both in territorial and military terms — that completely shattered him.
This is mainly because the practice and composition of Congress is based in the Hindu community. Under the conditions in which religion and state were not separated, rise of BJP need not be taken with alarm since there was no actual threats to democracy equivalent to inter war Europe.
The fallout out of such secularism is blurring of boundaries between ideologies in which Congress is soft on Hindutva and BJP professing the language of secularism. The courts in India have taken lead in declaring the laws unconstitutional that contravene the public interest and are against the ideals of constitution.
Towards the end of book, Anderson looks into how intellectuals have tackled the question of Indian ideology or in general the political system. The approach of most of the intellectuals is highly critical, but the approach to the cardinal values of Indian ideology — democracy, secularity, unity — is different.
There Is An Indian Ideology, But It's Not This
Political critique is less searching and less comprehensive in the context of apparatuses of repression like preventive detention laws. The cultural aspects like practice, belief burden of metaphysics, poetry and mathematics make it highly difficult to engage with a secular criticism of the Hinduism.
What is the way out then from this intoxication by the uniqueness of idea of India that harms the national character and interest?
First of all, there is aneed to engage in a self-critical manner. Secondly there is need to come out of the burden of the romanticized past. Overall the book fulfills the need in the academic and intellectual circles — that ideals and democratic consciousness needs to be backed by democratic practices and if that is not followed, then there is need of self critical engagement to fine tune the ideas to the reality, whether that reality be BJP, or need to move to consociational politics.
BJP is a party that has established cadres and programme and so long as Congress plays soft on Hindutva there is no reason to vote for it. Consociational representation for minorities in proportion to population could well serve to protect their interests.
The Indian Ideology
The reality thus demands justice to be done to the people at the margins. But there are certain issues that strike the mind while reading the book. The reality however is that pushes and pulls to carry all others in unison, and weigh the decision in terms of national interest bear heavily on decision makers.
Take the case of Nehru and his socialistic pattern of economy.
His choice for this pattern was countered by conservative clique of Sardar Patel. The sustenance of this conservative clique — that provided niche for Indian Bourgeoisie — was facilitated by particular method of decision making in congress in which Nehru had little room of maneuvering.
This is because there was a ratio in favour of the Patel-led conservatives in the Congress Working Committee since the mids and this method maintained the status quo. The structural factors also limited his choice for reform. In "Partition", Anderson places the blame for the bloody Partition of India on the Hindu-dominated Indian National Congress , arguing that its claim to be the sole representative for all Indians led to the inevitable rise of the Muslim League and the two-nation theory.
The Indian Ideology
Asked by Praful Bidwai in an interview to sum up The Indian Ideology , Anderson said the book "advances five main arguments that run counter to conventional wisdom in India today":.
Firstly, that the idea of a subcontinental unity stretching back six thousand years is a myth.
Thirdly, that primary responsibility for Partition lay not with the Raj, but Congress. Lastly, that Indian democracy is not contradicted by caste inequality, but rather enabled by it.
Following the essays' original publication, the LRB received several letters of praise as well as criticism from scholars in India and abroad. When they were collected in book form as The Indian Ideology by Three Essays Collective, a small Gurgaon -based publisher of scholarly material, the work received mixed reviews in the print and digital media. Perry Anderson considers Indian democracy a sham and states that liberal Indian scholars tend to "fall over themselves" in their efforts to praise Indian unity and democracy, ideas which Anderson states are fabrications.
Partially because Anderson is one of the foremost Marxist scholars, left leaning Indian scholars have been distressed and outraged with Anderson's criticism of the Indian ideology. While Anderson's critics accuse him of "quasi-imperialist condescension, Orientalist caricature and ignorance" Mishra finds that Anderson can easily slam such accusations, since he has expended even more criticism on the British ruling class.
Mishra states that it is difficult to argue with Anderson's findings and is at times unanswerable on the Indian military occupation of Kashmir, leaves readers struck by the evidence of the role of the upper-caste Hindus in Indian politics and displays awkward facts about the roles of Nehru and Gandhi in the Partition of India to their admirers.
Pritam Singh from Oxford Brookes University finds that Anderson's book is a rare path breaking assessment of the existing scholarship on India and South Asia. Singh describes the work as a "very dense and penetrating" insight into the construction of modern India.
Singh observes that the book has brought up grave questions for India's left-wing politics. Ravi Palat reviews the book as a "sure-footed" survey of the Indian independence movement and modern India. Palat finds that Anderson debunks many liberal myths around the personalities of Gandhi and Nehru and also those around Indian democracy and unity.
Anderson's insights are described as incisive and Palat also affirms Anderson's attention to detail. At the same time Palat faults Anderson for his recourse to the "great man" theory and "Eurocentric prejudices.
Anderson collects a "dismal record" for India and attributes India's failings to ideological nationalism upheld by both Indian politicians and Indian scholars. Philips observes that many Indian scholars, both right-wing and left-wing, "turned away" from the book and even before its publication the preceding LRB essays received a "storm of criticism" from Indian scholars.
Indian historian Irfan Habib criticised the essays for its selective presentation of facts and even distortion of them, a neglect of the colonial context in which the independence movement was waged, and the bypassing of the role of Muslim League in India's partition.Today, the Indian state claims to embody the values of a stable political democracy, a harmonious territorial unity, and a steadfast religious impartiality.
The three great insurgencies against the Indian state have come in Kashmir, Nagaland-Mizoram and Punjab — regions respectively Muslim, Christian and Sikh. The arrival of independence would, in its own way, make the links of the North-East to the rest of India even more tenuous. View complete author profile. The things have in fact moved from bad to worse with no improvement in sight in the near future.
So remote were these from anything to do with India, even as constituted by the Victorian Empire, that when Burma was detached from the Raj in , officials came close to allocating them to Rangoon rather than Delhi.
New Password. In less than a week, they were ignominiously routed, disintegrating completely as a military force. Partha Chatterjee Search for more papers by this author.