This is an excellent, well-written introduction to the history of India after it became an independent country on August 15, 1947. In particular, this book effectively communicates the author’s understanding that it is something of a miracle that India continues to be one country under a parliamentary democracy rather than a host of small countries under military dictatorships or sectarian governments.
One of the first things I did with this 857-page book was to cut it in half with an X-Acto knife; that way, I had two books, each one small enough to hold in my hands. Wikipedia tells me this book was revised and expanded in 2017 by Ecco Press (HarperCollins). That edition is 992 pages! You may want to think about cutting it into thirds.
Yes, it is a long book but satisfying, especially to someone like me who knows little of Indian geography or its recent history. I had previously read Gandhi’s autobiography, so I knew a little about the country’s history in the first half of the 20th century. (Reading that book pointed me to John Ruskin’s 1860 book Unto This Last and to other books and I ended up visiting Ruskin’s home in the Lake District on my first visit to England.)
Like many, I had watched the movie ”Gandhi”. That inspirational film made me wonder what happened to the sub-continent after this amazing social leader died. Besides pushing for independence from Great Britain, Gandhi advocated some radical social changes, especially for women and the untouchables. Did the changes he advocated take place in Indian society?
The book was especially satisfying in showing how forces of division and war can be countered by forces of unity and peace. In 1947 and for many years afterwards, India was and in many ways still is divided by caste, language, religion, class, and gender. Even so, it remains whole if we exclude the initial break-away of some of the Muslim population into Pakistan and, eventually, Bangladesh. While Pakistan set itself up as a Muslim country, India made a point of remaining secular. Many Hindus want a united Hindu state, but so far those sectarian forces have been checked. India continues to have the second-largest population of Muslims in the world, living under laws that treat them as equals. I need not say that civil laws do not always govern human behavior. Discrimination, riots, and massacres are all part of recent Indian history, and not just between Hindus and Muslims.
I am thinking in particular of the tensions between Sikhs and the Hindus in the Punjab. After Sikh separatists were violently eradicated by the Indian army from the Golden Temple, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (no relation to the Mahatma) was assassinated by two Sikh guards. This provoked the widespread murder of Sikhs by vengeful Hindus. More than a thousand Sikhs, easily identified by their turbans, were murdered in south and central Delhi, hundreds elsewhere, while the police looked on. Only in Calcutta, home to 50,000 Sikhs, did the police maintain peace under the orders of the chief minister of West Bengal, Jyoti Basu.
I am also thinking of a common action by radicals, the use of massacre as provocation. In one case, buses or trains would be stopped by Muslim terrorists. Hindus would be taken off and killed, specifically in hopes of provoking Hindus in Delhi and elsewhere to riot and massacre. The idea was to radicalize the Muslims living amid Hindus. That hundreds would die was incidental to the cause.
On October 7, 2023, we saw a similar provocation by Hamas in Israel. Hamas did everything it could to force Israel to attack Gaza in retaliation. Murder, kidnapping, and rape were all calculated to inflame Israeli revenge. It worked. And, even though tens of thousands of Palestinians have died in Gaza, the idea was to radicalize the Muslim world and to isolate Israel politically. It worked. Like it or not, massacre as provocation seems to be an effective political tool, even though your own people bear the sacrifice.
But not always. Michael Cohen, in numerous articles in the New York Times, has recognized the Hamas provocation for what it was, the desire for a murderous Israeli response in Gaza. The editorial I encourage you to look at is that of October 29, 2023 — “The Israeli Officials I Speak With Tell Me They Know Two Things for Sure” — in which he praises the India’s response to a similar provocation.
“I am watching the Israel-Hamas war and thinking about one of the world leaders I’ve most admired: Manmohan Singh. He was India’s prime minister in late November 2008 when 10 Pakistani jihadist militants from the Lashkar-e-Taiba group, widely believed to be linked to Pakistan’s military intelligence, infiltrated India and killed more than 160 people in Mumbai, including 61 at two luxury hotels. What was Singh’s military response to India’s Sept. 11? He did nothing.” Pakistan’s army wanted India to retaliate, hoping India’s retaliation would rally people around the army. Instead, India sought to mourn its dead and seek international justice. No war with Pakistan would benefit India, so no retaliation took place. If only Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government had been as astute after October 7.