Return to: Home | World Affairs | Asia

The India that is not and never was

Sholto Byrnes

Published 04 December 2008

These attacks were on a different scale - more open, more organised, more direct. But there are many other internal pressures that weigh just as heavily on India's future

A young recruit to the Naxalite movement shows off her skills in Kolkata

The India that is not and never was

The atrocities in Mumbai have concentrated attention on the threat of jihadi terrorism, whether home-grown or inspired or supported by Pakistan.

The weekend before the attacks, the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, gave a speech at a conference of directors and inspectors general of police in which he warned against the threat of left-wing extremism in India. It was, he said, "perhaps the most serious internal security threat we face". This was a reference to the Naxalite Maoist rebel movement active in more than half the country's states, with forces of roughly 15,000-20,000 permanently armed cadres.

Named after Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal where a violent uprising took place in 1967, the various groups in the movement carry out bombings and hijackings, causing hundreds of deaths each year, and control a fifth of India's forests.

Days earlier, shock had greeted official confirmation of the discovery of the country's first Hindu terror cell, thought to be responsible for a series of bombings previously blamed on militant Muslim groups. There were links to a former student leader in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Hindu nationalists who form the country's main opposition, and to an army colonel. This last aspect was particularly worrying, given the welcome tradition of apoliticism in the armed forces.

The month before that, Hindu right-wingers, dubbed "Saffro-Nazis", killed more than 500 Christians in Orissa, forced many others to convert and displaced tens of thousands, all supposedly in retribution for the murder of a local leader for which Maoists claimed responsibility.

India was always an unlikely nation. The British claimed only empire could keep it together; the high-ranking Raj official Sir John Strachey declared that "there is not and never was an India, or even any country of India possessing any sort of unity - physical, political, social or religious". For decades after independence its break-up was predicted. Factors such as the diversity of languages spoken (22 are officially recognised by the constitution), however, have not led to the territorial divisions some anticipated. Progress has been made in overcoming other deep clefts, as shown by the fact that a Dalit (untouchable) woman, Mayawati Kumari, is in her fourth period in office as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state in the country.

The real threat is not, perhaps, to the territorial integrity of India (although it is just possible that there may at some point be movement on Kashmir), but to the idea of India - that secularist, pluralist dream of Nehru and other early Congress leaders.

For since independence, as the historian Ramachandra Guha puts it, India has not become a "melting pot" but remained a "salad bowl" culture. While there has always been friction between the different constituents of that culture, the rise of the BJP, which first came to power nationally in 1996, marked a hardening of sectarianism.

"There has been an erosion of the liberal ethos in the Indian elite," says Sunil Khilnani, director of the South Asia Studies Programme at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC. "Twenty to 25 years ago secularism was healthier in some ways."

In spite of the recent terror attacks he, at least, remains an optimist. "I don't give up hope in moments like this. There is no alternative to the [secular, pluralist] aim that India at its best has set itself - unless the country is really going to descend into regular violence."

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

Mohan_434454
04 December 2008 at 16:56

This misrepresents Ramachandra Guha by selectively quoting him. He also protested vigorously against the harassment meted out to Taslima Nasreen because of her blunt honesty about the evils of a religious-based (in her case Muslim) system. All societies are salad bowls - of individuals. Including the most homogeneous places on earth. Bin Laden wants to mass-murder fellow Saudis who have a humanitarian outlook, Kim Song Il wants to murder fellow Koreans. Name one country that really is a melting pot. I can't think of any. India, the United States, Brazil and Israel (because of the immigration of Jews of various ethnicities) are the four that come the closest. And now Europe, because they have a common market.

bbb3423423
05 December 2008 at 12:25

That's right, it's always the fault of hindus, christians, jews... not the innocent muslims.

No one cares how those groups are treated in other countries, because they don't bomb enough innocent civilians.

Don't stereotype, terrorists can be of ANY religion, pay attention to these one or two cases and ignore the thousands of others!

kanchhedia
03 January 2009 at 18:02

India after its putative independence has remained an imperial construct. The only change that occurred in 1946 was that in stead of ruling it directly, the West now rules India through WOGs, the brown sahib toffs that make up its Anglophone elite.

If the choice is between linguistic autonomy on one hand and integration within a chimera of nation, as it indeed is, then I would always choose autonomy, and I am surprised how the soi disant progressive liberals can even think otherwise.

The people who benefit the most by keeping a disparate set of people together are the Anglophone elite who lord over them, and the Big Corporations.

The upper echelons of all three major employers in India, the bureaucracy, the corporate sector, and the armed forces are exclusively manned by the English speaking toffs, and I do not understand how democracy and self-determination is served by keeping this oppressive structure intact in the name of secular pluralism.

How a country whose constitution was conceived and written in a language that fewer than 2% of people understand is more than I can understand. What meaning can freedom of information have in a country where most documents that can be sought from the central government are in a language that a vast majority of the country does not understand?

I left India nearly thirty years ago because white-collar employers in India tended to consider me unfit for gainful employment on account of my ignorance of the creator of the character “Lord Emsworth” or of the composition of a dry martini. On arrival in the US, I discovered that students with inadequate command of English are treated as human in the Universities in the US, a dignity that not all people at Delhi School of Economics were willing to accord me. I have since been hiding in the US at a safe remove from my tormentors in the Anglophone Indian elite.

Kanchhedia Chamaar

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Sholto Byrnes

Sholto Byrnes is a contributing editor of the New Statesman and the jazz critic of the Independent. Previously he was diary editor, chief interviewer and senior feature writer at both Independent titles. He is a judge for this year's Paul Hamlyn Foundation awards for composers.

Also by Sholto Byrnes

Read More

Vote!

Will China rule the world?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker