What do you think?
Rate this book
The Indian Ideology with Replies to Questions and Criticisms
Today, the Indian state claims to embody the values of a stable political democracy, a harmonious territorial unity, and a steadfast religious impartiality. Even many of those critical of the inequalities of Indian society underwrite such claims. But how far do they correspond to the realities of the Union? If they do not do so, is that simply because of the fate of circumstance, or the recent misconduct of its rulers?
The Indian Ideology suggests that the roots of the current ills of the Republic go much deeper, historically. They lie, it argues, in the way the struggle for independence culminated in the transfer of power from British rule to Congress in a divided subcontinent, not least in the roles played by Gandhi as the great architect of the movement, and Nehru as his appointed successor, in the catastrophe of Partition. Only a honest reckoning with that disaster, Perry Anderson argues, offers an understanding of what has gone wrong with the Republic since Independence.
The 'Idea of India', widely diffused not only in the official establishment, but more broadly in mainstream intellectual life, side-steps or suppresses many of these uncomfortable realities, past and present. For its own reasons, much of the left has yet to challenge the upshot: what has come to be the neo-Nehruvian consensus of the time. The Indian Ideology, revisiting the events of over a century in the light of how millions of Indians fare in the Republic today, suggests another way of looking at the country. Marx, urging his contemporaries to 'face with sober senses their real conditions of life', furnishes an example of how that might be done.
The Indian Ideology suggests that the roots of the current ills of the Republic go much deeper, historically. They lie, it argues, in the way the struggle for independence culminated in the transfer of power from British rule to Congress in a divided subcontinent, not least in the roles played by Gandhi as the great architect of the movement, and Nehru as his appointed successor, in the catastrophe of Partition. Only a honest reckoning with that disaster, Perry Anderson argues, offers an understanding of what has gone wrong with the Republic since Independence.
The 'Idea of India', widely diffused not only in the official establishment, but more broadly in mainstream intellectual life, side-steps or suppresses many of these uncomfortable realities, past and present. For its own reasons, much of the left has yet to challenge the upshot: what has come to be the neo-Nehruvian consensus of the time. The Indian Ideology, revisiting the events of over a century in the light of how millions of Indians fare in the Republic today, suggests another way of looking at the country. Marx, urging his contemporaries to 'face with sober senses their real conditions of life', furnishes an example of how that might be done.
236 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
30 people are currently reading
886 people want to read
About the author
Perry Anderson
110 books255 followersPerry Anderson is an English Marxist intellectual and historian. He is Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA and an editor of the New Left Review. He is the brother of historian Benedict Anderson.
He was an influence on the New Left. He bore the brunt of the disapproval of E.P. Thompson in the latter's The Poverty of Theory, in a controversy during the late 1970s over the scientific Marxism of Louis Althusser, and the use of history and theory in the politics of the Left. In the mid-1960s, Thompson wrote an essay for the annual Socialist Register that rejected Anderson's view of aristocratic dominance of Britain's historical trajectory, as well as Anderson's seeming preference for continental European theorists over radical British traditions and empiricism. Anderson delivered two responses to Thompson's polemics, first in an essay in New Left Review (January-February 1966) called "Socialism and Pseudo-Empiricism" and then in a more conciliatory yet ambitious overview, Arguments within English Marxism (1980).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_An...
He was an influence on the New Left. He bore the brunt of the disapproval of E.P. Thompson in the latter's The Poverty of Theory, in a controversy during the late 1970s over the scientific Marxism of Louis Althusser, and the use of history and theory in the politics of the Left. In the mid-1960s, Thompson wrote an essay for the annual Socialist Register that rejected Anderson's view of aristocratic dominance of Britain's historical trajectory, as well as Anderson's seeming preference for continental European theorists over radical British traditions and empiricism. Anderson delivered two responses to Thompson's polemics, first in an essay in New Left Review (January-February 1966) called "Socialism and Pseudo-Empiricism" and then in a more conciliatory yet ambitious overview, Arguments within English Marxism (1980).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_An...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews
February 27, 2020
Moral indignation is too precious an export to be wasted at home.
I pledge to continue chipping at my colossal ignorance of South Asian history. My condition towards such is woeful. This latest read, coincidentally my third text (though not exclusively pertaining to South Asia) by Verso Press in recent weeks, was a valued reframing of what little modern history I had previously understood. Anderson asserts that Gandhi was a weird chap and not a scholar. The idea of harmonious secular multicultural was an image necessary for decolonization. The Muslims were never understood nor embraced so Partition was consequently inevitable. Kashmir was an illegal land grab-- one contrary to the democratic image so effusively constructed by the Congress Party. And as to Indira, if there were no Emergency, then there wouldn't be a BJP. Anderson also crafts some interesting parallels to Ireland and Israel -- other places where the distinction between the state and faith are routinely blurred.
I pledge to continue chipping at my colossal ignorance of South Asian history. My condition towards such is woeful. This latest read, coincidentally my third text (though not exclusively pertaining to South Asia) by Verso Press in recent weeks, was a valued reframing of what little modern history I had previously understood. Anderson asserts that Gandhi was a weird chap and not a scholar. The idea of harmonious secular multicultural was an image necessary for decolonization. The Muslims were never understood nor embraced so Partition was consequently inevitable. Kashmir was an illegal land grab-- one contrary to the democratic image so effusively constructed by the Congress Party. And as to Indira, if there were no Emergency, then there wouldn't be a BJP. Anderson also crafts some interesting parallels to Ireland and Israel -- other places where the distinction between the state and faith are routinely blurred.
December 12, 2020
3.5 stars. It's astonishing how a book by a Western Marxist can upset the entire left-leaning Indian academy. Stalwarts like Partha Chatterjee and Sudipta Kaviraj have written extensive critiques of The Indian Ideology, going to the extent of questioning how it passed peer review, and equating it with the colonial imagination of Indian politics as the troubling vagaries of the Hindu mind respectively.
To say that only some deep, hidden truth can create such outrage would be a cliché. Yet all clichés possess some hidden truth themselves. Anderson is uncomfortably right about many things. Reading his book is a process of unlearning - of becoming more realistic about the vainglory that is the idea of India.
While he has some brilliant takes, and is undoubtedly right about many things, the colonial mind - refracted through the Marxist lens - does shine through. The tongue-in-cheek manner in which he describes "native Hindu rituals", and his belief that Ambedkar was the only level-headed influential leader in post-Independence India as he was simply not Hindu is definitely a terrible opinion to have, and discredit his otherwise novel approach to the fable of Indian independence.
To say that only some deep, hidden truth can create such outrage would be a cliché. Yet all clichés possess some hidden truth themselves. Anderson is uncomfortably right about many things. Reading his book is a process of unlearning - of becoming more realistic about the vainglory that is the idea of India.
While he has some brilliant takes, and is undoubtedly right about many things, the colonial mind - refracted through the Marxist lens - does shine through. The tongue-in-cheek manner in which he describes "native Hindu rituals", and his belief that Ambedkar was the only level-headed influential leader in post-Independence India as he was simply not Hindu is definitely a terrible opinion to have, and discredit his otherwise novel approach to the fable of Indian independence.
August 8, 2016
Searing piece of work that burns the whole mythology of 'Idea of India' to ground and its proponents along with it, from Guha to Sen to Mehta. Unflinching, polemical and brutally honest take on the whole freedom struggle, its caste character, later history..the whole hog. And most importantly the silence and complicity of its 'intellectuals' in the project of sham and impunity that is the modern state of India
June 4, 2019
This book is a collection of three essays by Anderson on the core ideological precepts of the Indian Union. Together they constitute a polemical and piercing interrogation of what Anderson calls the "Trimurti" (three-form) values of "the Indian Ideology": democracy, secularity, and unity. The first essay ("Independence") investigates the origin of these values in the struggle for independence from Britain. The second essay ("Partition") is an examination of how these three values would unfold in the murderous tragedy of Partition. The final and longest essay, "Republic," is a devastatingly acerbic inquisition of how these values inform the successes and failures of Indian democracy today.
I picked up this book thinking, perhaps, that it would be an investigation of Hindutva ideology, but in fact it is an analysis of the ideology surrounding liberal Indian nationalism, as epitomized by the Congress party. However, Anderson argues it is precisely the failures of Congress that have paved the way for the rise of Hindutva, comparing this dynamic to how Mapai gave rise to Likud in Israel and Fine Gael to Fianna Fail in Ireland. In all these cases, a nationalist party (Congress, Mapai, Fine Gael) arose during the twilight of British Empire and acquired a deeply religious character which fueled its nationalism. After independence, the party "distanced itself from the confessional undertow of the struggle" but without directly acknowledging or repudiating its theological roots. In doing so, they open the door to a rival (BJP, Likud, Fianna Fail) which, in brazenly proclaiming its religious values, can claim to be heir to the original nationalist movement. Now Congress has become a dynastic fossil carried on by inertia, nepotism, and the sheerest facade of being the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, as malignantly Fascist as the BJP is, Anderson reminds us that it is a legitimate party with a programme, cadres, a mass base, etc. Yet until Congress dies, no real opposition to the BJP can be formed, and thus we are left with the present status quo: Indian liberals manifest token resistance to the BJP by voting for Congress at the polls, while doing little else to combat the BJP's rise.
Anderson argues against the "miraculist" narrative of Indian democracy: that for such a confessionally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse country to unite under a stable liberal democracy (the world's largest, its advocates croon) is nothing short of a miracle. He offers perfectly terrestrial explanations for the successes of Indian democracy, while simultaneously picking apart the idea that the Union is actually as pluralistic and tolerant as it claims. Core to both its successes and failures are the institution of caste (and its primacy over class), which simultaneously bolsters Indian parliamentarianism and chokes the formation of a mass working class party which could actually pose a threat to both Congress and the BJP. Caste identity politics is the engine of Indian democracy: a shifting web of inter-caste alliances keep the spectacle going while simultaneously splintering working class power. The result is the victory of symbolic concessions, not material concessions, to the poor and marginalized of Indian society. Thus parliamentary democracy in India "dispenses the political class from distributing much more than confetti to the masses who have elected them."
This book may jolt or unnerve those who are accustomed to relatively sanitized readings of Indian history and politics, as is far too common. Anderson's willingness to mercilessly interrogate the myths of the Indian Union sets him apart and makes this work indispensable.
I picked up this book thinking, perhaps, that it would be an investigation of Hindutva ideology, but in fact it is an analysis of the ideology surrounding liberal Indian nationalism, as epitomized by the Congress party. However, Anderson argues it is precisely the failures of Congress that have paved the way for the rise of Hindutva, comparing this dynamic to how Mapai gave rise to Likud in Israel and Fine Gael to Fianna Fail in Ireland. In all these cases, a nationalist party (Congress, Mapai, Fine Gael) arose during the twilight of British Empire and acquired a deeply religious character which fueled its nationalism. After independence, the party "distanced itself from the confessional undertow of the struggle" but without directly acknowledging or repudiating its theological roots. In doing so, they open the door to a rival (BJP, Likud, Fianna Fail) which, in brazenly proclaiming its religious values, can claim to be heir to the original nationalist movement. Now Congress has become a dynastic fossil carried on by inertia, nepotism, and the sheerest facade of being the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, as malignantly Fascist as the BJP is, Anderson reminds us that it is a legitimate party with a programme, cadres, a mass base, etc. Yet until Congress dies, no real opposition to the BJP can be formed, and thus we are left with the present status quo: Indian liberals manifest token resistance to the BJP by voting for Congress at the polls, while doing little else to combat the BJP's rise.
Anderson argues against the "miraculist" narrative of Indian democracy: that for such a confessionally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse country to unite under a stable liberal democracy (the world's largest, its advocates croon) is nothing short of a miracle. He offers perfectly terrestrial explanations for the successes of Indian democracy, while simultaneously picking apart the idea that the Union is actually as pluralistic and tolerant as it claims. Core to both its successes and failures are the institution of caste (and its primacy over class), which simultaneously bolsters Indian parliamentarianism and chokes the formation of a mass working class party which could actually pose a threat to both Congress and the BJP. Caste identity politics is the engine of Indian democracy: a shifting web of inter-caste alliances keep the spectacle going while simultaneously splintering working class power. The result is the victory of symbolic concessions, not material concessions, to the poor and marginalized of Indian society. Thus parliamentary democracy in India "dispenses the political class from distributing much more than confetti to the masses who have elected them."
This book may jolt or unnerve those who are accustomed to relatively sanitized readings of Indian history and politics, as is far too common. Anderson's willingness to mercilessly interrogate the myths of the Indian Union sets him apart and makes this work indispensable.
November 30, 2013
A book that offers insight into India's failings and her attempts to correct them or, at least, not let them increase. Anderson contends that we must be aware of the fact that not everything is as good it should be especially when we dream of becoming a superpower. He takes our attention to the writings of various accounts written by Indian authors who seem content with the situation. While calling their works serious, he embarks on his journey of pointing broadly to the mistakes India has made or is making.
Many of us may criticise him for not sharing the kind of euphorism with many of indigenous writers who sometimes express overoptimism instead of cautious, or even at pleces pessimism -- believe it or not, some events or instances are really unbecoming of a nation apiring to be a future superpower. But we have to reflect over many issues and happenings if we are serious about 'the superpower dream'.
It is a good and insightful book for those who are interested in 'the idea of India', perticularly those young and aspiring to contribute something valuable in the right direction and in a right manner. For, the future lies in the hands of the young generation and the person learns form mistakes.
Many of us may criticise him for not sharing the kind of euphorism with many of indigenous writers who sometimes express overoptimism instead of cautious, or even at pleces pessimism -- believe it or not, some events or instances are really unbecoming of a nation apiring to be a future superpower. But we have to reflect over many issues and happenings if we are serious about 'the superpower dream'.
It is a good and insightful book for those who are interested in 'the idea of India', perticularly those young and aspiring to contribute something valuable in the right direction and in a right manner. For, the future lies in the hands of the young generation and the person learns form mistakes.
July 15, 2014
An interesting and well-researched repudiation (or to put it mildly,reconsideration) of the "Idea of India".
October 26, 2015
Good, but kinda racist.
May 4, 2022
History of the Indian governing apparatus aside, there's another lesson in this book. I can't locate the quote but towards the end of the book Anderson describes the political relationship between India and some of its much smaller neighbours as follows: "India, due to its size and power, could afford to be less belligerent — and it's to her shame that she wasn't".
E.H. Carr makes the distinction between realist and utopian perspectives on power relations (between classes, states, alliances): while the realist asserts that powers will do what they can and must to serve their own particular interests, utopians measure their conduct by principles floating high above the earth: generosity, equality, altruism, and find them lacking. He makes the comment that the question is not to be resolved in a facile way by sticking to one and discarding the other — pure realism is amoral and, more importantly, agentless and determinist and hence is no guide for action, while utopianism is very limited as an analytical toolbox but does provide statesmen with a catechesis of goals. 2 equivalent tools?
But this is limited. The realist critique is not as determinist as assumed. Like historical materialism, it is stochastic: given external circumstances X and the relative weight of decisionmakers Y, policies Z tick the box of "what's possible" and "what's desirable" and are more or less likely to be pursued. Realism can 'bracket' utopian motivations as the translation of Realpolitik into personal aspirations of the decisionmaker; utopianism can do little more than judge realism as dour and pragmatic. But understanding between these is a one-way street.
Anderson's comment shows a way out of this realist impasse. A utopian judgement that can understand realist constraints starts with taking stock of possibilities and interests — and appreciates action less than what's possible, benefiting the State less than what it might have, but creating room for others to benefit more than they otherwise would have. Carr's insistence on the disharmony of interests — there are many zero-sum situations where one's gain is another's loss — is applied here in limited self-sacrifice.
E.H. Carr makes the distinction between realist and utopian perspectives on power relations (between classes, states, alliances): while the realist asserts that powers will do what they can and must to serve their own particular interests, utopians measure their conduct by principles floating high above the earth: generosity, equality, altruism, and find them lacking. He makes the comment that the question is not to be resolved in a facile way by sticking to one and discarding the other — pure realism is amoral and, more importantly, agentless and determinist and hence is no guide for action, while utopianism is very limited as an analytical toolbox but does provide statesmen with a catechesis of goals. 2 equivalent tools?
But this is limited. The realist critique is not as determinist as assumed. Like historical materialism, it is stochastic: given external circumstances X and the relative weight of decisionmakers Y, policies Z tick the box of "what's possible" and "what's desirable" and are more or less likely to be pursued. Realism can 'bracket' utopian motivations as the translation of Realpolitik into personal aspirations of the decisionmaker; utopianism can do little more than judge realism as dour and pragmatic. But understanding between these is a one-way street.
Anderson's comment shows a way out of this realist impasse. A utopian judgement that can understand realist constraints starts with taking stock of possibilities and interests — and appreciates action less than what's possible, benefiting the State less than what it might have, but creating room for others to benefit more than they otherwise would have. Carr's insistence on the disharmony of interests — there are many zero-sum situations where one's gain is another's loss — is applied here in limited self-sacrifice.
September 24, 2018
Perry turns his merciless scalpel to India, and, as one would expect, the results are devastating.
June 15, 2013
After reading this book I couldn't understand Mr. Perry Anderson. At times he presents himself as a neutral, nonpartisan academician, but in other parts it seems as if the book was written by a person who hates anything Indian and would give even absurd and risible reasoning to show Indians in a bad light. Most of the points raised by the author in the book are well reasoned and corroborated;although,some authors and books he has referred to, raises some doubts, as these writers are proved partisans with anti-Indian views. The worst thing in the book is the personal comments made by the author,like Nehru going to bed with lady Mountbatten or Indira Gandhi sleeping with the PA of Nehru. What's the need of this?To prove his points, Mr. Anderson has given reasoning which is simply indigestible. Moreover, the prose is very bad and it takes a lot of effort to understand what the author wants to say.
But, in spite of these lacunae, Mr. Anderson has raised some valid and very basic questions in the book about the ideology behind the Indian democracy and these make the book readable.
But, in spite of these lacunae, Mr. Anderson has raised some valid and very basic questions in the book about the ideology behind the Indian democracy and these make the book readable.
Read
August 21, 2019Useful survey of pre-independence, partition, and the failures (negligent and malicious) of Congress party after taking power, and how an ostensibly liberal democracy seeded the rise of fascist BJP to political legitimacy. Felt especially relevant reading it the same week Modi went mask off in Kashmir. Nehru takes a lot of blame. A lot of prior knowledge is assumed, which has been my experience with Anderson. Would recommend reading alongside Arundhati Roy's The Doctor and the Saint: Caste, Race, and Annihilation of Caste, the Debate Between B.R. Ambedkar and M.K. Gandhi.
November 3, 2015
Brutal look at the nationalist myths behind India's independence movement and its leading figures. Anderson isn't as iconalastic as he likes to think he is and many of the critiques of Gandhi and Nehru have been offered in previous academic works on the subject; but he brings to bear a harsh but accurate examination of the limitations of Indian nationalism, particularly its linkage to Hinduism and through Hinduism to caste social stratification as an important reason as to why it was unable to incorporate Muslim political aspirations, or those of non-Hindu communities fully into the Indian nation.
An uncomfortable but vital read.
An uncomfortable but vital read.
April 24, 2020
A great read despite of its few errors caused due to impressionistic analysis of author. People who don't have strong grip on Indian realpolitik may misread this work.
December 6, 2020
It is an extremely brief summary at best & when it is critical , it isn't critical enough in its depth.
It is a good book only if you haven't read better books on this topic.
It is a good book only if you haven't read better books on this topic.
July 26, 2024
It’s a pretty thoroughgoing attack on the cult of the Congress and an intervention into the highly partisan political imaginary of India. Although in the first part I was quite skeptical and some of it came off as just another imperialist rendering of colonized peoples’ history, the argument really came into full force in the third chapter and the “Part Two” of the Expanded Edition.
Anderson draws on Ambedkar against both Gandhi and the Nehru dynasty, and is very good on exposing the bullshit rationales for the brutal occupation of Kashmir. Nehru’s imperialist occupation of Kashmir, built on easily discredited mythologies and brute force, has continued through all successive governments and was drastically escalated by Modi in 2019.
Probably most revealing in terms of Nehru’s legacy was the massacre and coverup in Hyderabad immediately after Independence. Largely in response to a massive Communist insurgency in Telengana and a desire to incorporate the princely state in the new union, Nehru sent in the Indian Army to take over Hyderabad, during which massive Hindu pogroms against the Muslim population broke out with the support of the soldiers. Conservative estimates of the death toll range from twenty-seven to forty thousand Muslims slaughtered over the course of a few weeks, the largest single massacre in the history of the Indian Union, dwarfing anything carried out by the BJP, and all under Nehru’s orders. Nehru and his daughter Indira Gandhi suppressed the reports of the massacre.
The real distinguishing feature of India’s democracy is the fact that the poor comprise not only the overwhelming majority of the electorate, but also vote in larger numbers than the wealthy. Behind all the remnants of the colonial administration (including, like the US, the wretched first-past-the-post electoral system), the persistence of capitalism and entrenched inequality comes down to a collective action problem. The central barrier here is, as Ambedkar diagnosed forcefully, caste—the “condition of Indian democracy.”
By the end it is brought up to more or less the present moment, after political developments in India played out along the lines predicted in the original edition. The central point made is that the Congress, contrary to their official ideology, has always been basically a (softer) Hindu nationalist party that paved the way for the BJP.
Anderson draws on Ambedkar against both Gandhi and the Nehru dynasty, and is very good on exposing the bullshit rationales for the brutal occupation of Kashmir. Nehru’s imperialist occupation of Kashmir, built on easily discredited mythologies and brute force, has continued through all successive governments and was drastically escalated by Modi in 2019.
Probably most revealing in terms of Nehru’s legacy was the massacre and coverup in Hyderabad immediately after Independence. Largely in response to a massive Communist insurgency in Telengana and a desire to incorporate the princely state in the new union, Nehru sent in the Indian Army to take over Hyderabad, during which massive Hindu pogroms against the Muslim population broke out with the support of the soldiers. Conservative estimates of the death toll range from twenty-seven to forty thousand Muslims slaughtered over the course of a few weeks, the largest single massacre in the history of the Indian Union, dwarfing anything carried out by the BJP, and all under Nehru’s orders. Nehru and his daughter Indira Gandhi suppressed the reports of the massacre.
The real distinguishing feature of India’s democracy is the fact that the poor comprise not only the overwhelming majority of the electorate, but also vote in larger numbers than the wealthy. Behind all the remnants of the colonial administration (including, like the US, the wretched first-past-the-post electoral system), the persistence of capitalism and entrenched inequality comes down to a collective action problem. The central barrier here is, as Ambedkar diagnosed forcefully, caste—the “condition of Indian democracy.”
“The role of caste in the political system would change, from the years after Independence to the present. What would not change was its structural significance as the ultimate secret of Indian democracy. Gandhi declared that caste alone had preserved Hinduism from disintegration. His judgement can be given a more contemporary application. Caste is what preserve Hindu democracy from disintegration.”(116)
By the end it is brought up to more or less the present moment, after political developments in India played out along the lines predicted in the original edition. The central point made is that the Congress, contrary to their official ideology, has always been basically a (softer) Hindu nationalist party that paved the way for the BJP.
“Such uncanny reproduction of the structural position of Congress by the BJP does not mean, of course, that the two are therefore the same as political forces, which both would in any case passionately deny. But they are umbilically tied to each other, as related versions of Indian nationalism and executors of the enormities these have wrought. The BJP is not a different species from Congress but, beneath their contrasts, a mutation of it." (250)
August 25, 2020
an incisive critical work on indian nationalism and its proponents, indian ideology is divided into three major units: independence, partition and republic. delineating specific trends in indian nationalism (called cultural nationalism by earlier critics like aloysius), anderson shows the lack of any academic interest in the rigorous caste, religious and other sectarian interests of the nationalists including gandhi, nehru and the congress, but, the sociologists and theorists including guha, partha chaterji, khilnani etc(the so called subaltern group), white wash indian nationalism and its peculiar interests. his scathing critical take touches the nerves of those subalternists (the postcolonialists whose only use would be essays full of jargons and romanticism) and replies in multiple volumes. while he considers most of the scholarships on india, still, the study lacks perspectives from the emerging contemporary sociologists and regional scholars. the work is still prolific and need of the hour considering how delusional and misleading are the works of those postcolonialists.
March 9, 2025
A very well researched and purposeful book. Anderson is thorough in his studies, yet concise and poignant in his writing. This combined with his position as an outsider, unbothered by national tabboos, makes for an extremely interesting and original read. I have the updated version with an extra 50 pages of reactions to criticisms and commentary on the past years of BJP rule under Modi, which i would really recommend as it gives a useful insight in the current state of the indian ideology.
November 23, 2014
The Indian Ideology is three essays (titled "Independence," "Partition," and "Republic") by UCLA historian Perry Anderson, originally published in 2012 in the London Review of Books, collected and published in book form by Verso in the UK and US and Three Essays Collective in India. It's exactly the sort of thing one never expects to find published in India at all, which is part of what makes it so bracing. It could have been written only by an outsider; no Indian would write such a book.
My strong and longstanding interest in Pakistan prompted me to read the second of the three essays, "Partition," when I first noticed it in the LRB. The Congress Party, writes Anderson,
I was so intrigued that I bought and read the whole book. It's short but packs a wallop, explicitly and forthrightly challenging decades of cant shamelessly kowtowing to the presumptions of the Indian state that emerged from the struggle against British rule in 1947. Anderson's incisive critique is especially timely given the current ascendancy of the assertive Hindutva ideology personified by new Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat at the time of an infamous anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002. But Anderson makes clear that he considers the ostensibly secular Congress little moreso than Modi's BJP.
The fictional character of India's secularism is historically significant given the appalling situation in Muslim-majority Kashmir, which I saw for myself in the mid-1990s and wrote about extensively in the early chapters of my book Alive and Well in Pakistan . Kashmir is widely considered the crux of the chronic tension between India and Pakistan, but to assert that is either myopic or a subtle evasion; the real crux, per Anderson's words quoted above, is the mere existence of Pakistan. Nehru, Mountbatten et al. did all they could circa 1947 to cripple Pakistan at birth, and 67 years later Pakistan - for all its severe and glaring flaws - still exists. And many Indians will never forgive it for that.
That said, the unresolved status of Kashmir, and above all the appalling suffering of ordinary Kashmiri people, deserves to be remembered and emphasized. Anderson does so, with characteristic candor:
My strong and longstanding interest in Pakistan prompted me to read the second of the three essays, "Partition," when I first noticed it in the LRB. The Congress Party, writes Anderson,
had accepted Partition as the price of a strong centralized state in which it could be sure of a monopoly of power, but in the mind of its top leaders it was a temporary concession. The party's resolution of June 5, 1947 that formally agreed to partition made its position very clear. "Geography and mountains and the sea fashioned India as she is, and no human agency can change that shape or come in the way of her final destiny" - least of all "the false doctrine of two nations." Mountbatten had engineered point-blank Partition with the same end in mind, saying explicitly that this would "give Pakistan a greater chance to fail on its demerits," and so was in the best interests of India, because a "truncated Pakistan, if conceded now, was bound to come back later. … The delusions of the Congress nationalism reshaped by Gandhi to Hindu specifications died hard.
I was so intrigued that I bought and read the whole book. It's short but packs a wallop, explicitly and forthrightly challenging decades of cant shamelessly kowtowing to the presumptions of the Indian state that emerged from the struggle against British rule in 1947. Anderson's incisive critique is especially timely given the current ascendancy of the assertive Hindutva ideology personified by new Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat at the time of an infamous anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002. But Anderson makes clear that he considers the ostensibly secular Congress little moreso than Modi's BJP.
The fictional character of India's secularism is historically significant given the appalling situation in Muslim-majority Kashmir, which I saw for myself in the mid-1990s and wrote about extensively in the early chapters of my book Alive and Well in Pakistan . Kashmir is widely considered the crux of the chronic tension between India and Pakistan, but to assert that is either myopic or a subtle evasion; the real crux, per Anderson's words quoted above, is the mere existence of Pakistan. Nehru, Mountbatten et al. did all they could circa 1947 to cripple Pakistan at birth, and 67 years later Pakistan - for all its severe and glaring flaws - still exists. And many Indians will never forgive it for that.
That said, the unresolved status of Kashmir, and above all the appalling suffering of ordinary Kashmiri people, deserves to be remembered and emphasized. Anderson does so, with characteristic candor:
There should be little need for any reminder of the fate of Kashmir, under the longest military occupation in the world. At its height, in the sixty years since it was taken by India, some 400,000 troops have been deployed to hold down a Valley population of five million - a far higher ratio of repression than in Palestine or Tibet. Demonstrations, strikes, riots, guerrillas, risings urban and rural, have all been beaten down with armed force. … The death toll, at a low reckoning, would be equivalent to the killing of four million people, were it India - more than double that, if higher estimates were accurate. Held fast by Nehru to prove that India was a secular state, Kashmir has demonstrated the exact opposite: a confessional expansionism.
July 12, 2020
This is probably the first book when I questioned the validity of written words. Most of us when reading a well publicised book, hope for at worse a well researched book with the right facts and at best a beautiful storyboarding along with justice to the historical events (a beautiful example would be Freedom at Midnight).
This book fails to clear the worst you expect a book to be by a jovian margin. It is one thing to not know the facts and one thing to misquote, cherry pick them.
For Anderson's research, it can be said that if it was holistic, it was premeditated and had an inclination to give the proclamation before the hearing. Anderson seems to have a premeditated grudge against Gandhi and Nehru, while makes a hero out of Ambedkar and Jinnah. While he does pick up the right threads, his aspersions are factually incorrect or very conveniently picked to vilify a select someones of the time.
His misquotings have been very assiduously answered by Rajmohan Gandhi in his small book Understanding the Founding Fathers: An Enquiry into the Indian Republic's Beginnings, where he provides well researched, factual version of Anderson's poorly researched at best and intentional malignant attempt at worst.
While there are multiple examples where the book misleads the reader with selectively quoting what leaders of the time had to say, there are obviously certain well researched sections but on a topic that already has a great volume of literature, I would not want anyone to pick this book. If you have already read this book, I urge you with utmost sincerity to read Rajmohan Gandhi's book and settle the score.
No doubt the critical reception of this book has mostly been very poor.
This book fails to clear the worst you expect a book to be by a jovian margin. It is one thing to not know the facts and one thing to misquote, cherry pick them.
For Anderson's research, it can be said that if it was holistic, it was premeditated and had an inclination to give the proclamation before the hearing. Anderson seems to have a premeditated grudge against Gandhi and Nehru, while makes a hero out of Ambedkar and Jinnah. While he does pick up the right threads, his aspersions are factually incorrect or very conveniently picked to vilify a select someones of the time.
His misquotings have been very assiduously answered by Rajmohan Gandhi in his small book Understanding the Founding Fathers: An Enquiry into the Indian Republic's Beginnings, where he provides well researched, factual version of Anderson's poorly researched at best and intentional malignant attempt at worst.
While there are multiple examples where the book misleads the reader with selectively quoting what leaders of the time had to say, there are obviously certain well researched sections but on a topic that already has a great volume of literature, I would not want anyone to pick this book. If you have already read this book, I urge you with utmost sincerity to read Rajmohan Gandhi's book and settle the score.
No doubt the critical reception of this book has mostly been very poor.
August 14, 2025
The problem with Perry Anderson is that his excellent prose is rife with errors in research, argumentative contradiction, and the whiff of the conspiratorial.
In essays with a strong biographical character, his sourcing of biographical details (Gandhi and Nehru being two focuses here) can be patchy. Has failed to observe the trends of historiography. Flatly false statements, such as the notion that these men (esp the former) are revered by all corners of political life, pop up with alarming frequency.
His grasp of the late colonial political scene is questionable. There was no force which ticked all the following boxes: strong commitments to national independence; non-state organizational power (including mass support); access to state or military power; strong commitments to electoral democracy and civil liberties; strong commitments to socially egalitarian policy measures; strong commitments to balanced representation of society, including symbolically and rhetorically. Some believed strongly in national independence, but were socially exclusive in their vision and conservative. Some believed very strongly in national independence (taking up arms) and even social equality and representation, but lacked any practical experience and means to bring it about. Some believed in social equality and representation but didn't care so much for national independence. It's quite clear to me that the Congress tended to prioritize national independence when there was a conflict with these other items, but adopted a less dramatic means than war to pursue it. Their method was, as Anderson correctly notes, to operate non-violently in order to build deep organizational power and reach. What you might call the Bose-Ambedkar fantasy is to act like such people offered remotely plausible alternatives given the British competence in counterinsurgency and their own expressed wills which are far removed from the many goals and expectations that Anderson has of politicians. The Congress was less important as a force that crowded out alternatives as it was a force that became dominant according to the prevailing constraints of the context. Most importantly for the criticism of Gandhi, there was little to no scope for both mass appeal and sterile political rhetoric with no cultural idiom. That would, and could, only be the feeble politics of a very narrow elite.
His view of the Partition has some truth in that it was signed off by most Congress leaders (not Gandhi famously), but beyond that it's weak tea. He doesn't note the extensive compromises made with basically all social groups (eg workers, farmers, industrialists, lawyers, artists, various tribes and castes, regional interests, women, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Anglo-Indians, etc) by the Congress. This was part of its ideological quest to represent the whole political nation, and Gandhi if anything pushed his influence to the limit in order to find compromises and bargains within a liberal democratic frame. The major exception of course was in dealing with the question of Muslim representation and politics. Anderson had the wrong frame in seeing the Congress as implacably Hindu because of its failure in its relations with Muslims; he needed to go deeper into why the Muslim question was different. In my view, Farzana Shaikh offers a compelling and important answer to that.
He doesn't speak much to the nature of the Republic outside "secularism" and "nationalism". He underrates the lack of military rule. He assumes that dynasty was a foregone conclusion after Nehru when his daughter was never designated as a successor and faced many high-profile barriers to her rule (so many that it is surprising to see no mention of them). He doesn't discuss much of the earnest projects of economic development and social reform, efforts which had real resources and political capital put behind them but are so obvious as targets for criticism given the lackluster results. He discusses caste in politics without giving much attention to ideology and the phenomenon of these micro electorates uniting into larger social-political groupings with broader public agendas. For one of the left, he surprisingly doesn't study the regionally varied history of land reforms in any detail nor does he have much concern for the history of communist organization and uprisings. Even on the secularism point, he doesn't make much of state symbolism consciously appropriating that of multiple historic empires of all religious affiliations. These are all important, and neglected, points in an analysis of the Indian polity and its national myths.
Importantly, he criticizes efforts at centralization and the lack of deep egalitarian reform. But centralization and coercion (things he doesn't actually care about, only mentioned to cast spears at liberals) are necessary for the sorts of societal restructuring he truly wants to see. Rather than going "they basically never tried to reform", the clearer explanation is that they actually did try and it was botched deeply.
Aside from all this, I take issue with his characterization of pre-British history. Someone like Sheldon Pollock is enough to dispel his ignorance on questions like that of cultural unity in the classical era. He has little awareness of this time period, characterizing the Mauryans and Guptas as exclusively Buddhist and Hindu respectively when both patronized many religious groups. He, for whatever reason, then goes on later to describe classical India as fundamentally Hindu in its thought and literate culture, when others certainly were active (especially and including the aforementioned Buddhists). This sloppiness reflects poorly and ironically fits with the kind of visions of historical India that he spills much ink criticizing. Some of his uncited assertions here are embarrassing. Some of his cited ones, for example from the overzealous historian BB Misra on the conquest of India, are still not credible. It was the perception of threat from Indian states (aligned with France) which was a consistent driver of the expansion of the British Indian Empire, not that they lacked capacity to threaten the British. These forces were organizationally inferior but could be similarly armed and often had superior tactical leadership. This is the standard assessment of the era's military history.
Reading this is likely to be an exercise in misinforming oneself even if I do agree that his targets (the myths, ideology of exceptionalism) are not unwisely chosen. And once again, even if it's wrong it's a kind of wrong that makes for relatively pleasant reading.
In essays with a strong biographical character, his sourcing of biographical details (Gandhi and Nehru being two focuses here) can be patchy. Has failed to observe the trends of historiography. Flatly false statements, such as the notion that these men (esp the former) are revered by all corners of political life, pop up with alarming frequency.
His grasp of the late colonial political scene is questionable. There was no force which ticked all the following boxes: strong commitments to national independence; non-state organizational power (including mass support); access to state or military power; strong commitments to electoral democracy and civil liberties; strong commitments to socially egalitarian policy measures; strong commitments to balanced representation of society, including symbolically and rhetorically. Some believed strongly in national independence, but were socially exclusive in their vision and conservative. Some believed very strongly in national independence (taking up arms) and even social equality and representation, but lacked any practical experience and means to bring it about. Some believed in social equality and representation but didn't care so much for national independence. It's quite clear to me that the Congress tended to prioritize national independence when there was a conflict with these other items, but adopted a less dramatic means than war to pursue it. Their method was, as Anderson correctly notes, to operate non-violently in order to build deep organizational power and reach. What you might call the Bose-Ambedkar fantasy is to act like such people offered remotely plausible alternatives given the British competence in counterinsurgency and their own expressed wills which are far removed from the many goals and expectations that Anderson has of politicians. The Congress was less important as a force that crowded out alternatives as it was a force that became dominant according to the prevailing constraints of the context. Most importantly for the criticism of Gandhi, there was little to no scope for both mass appeal and sterile political rhetoric with no cultural idiom. That would, and could, only be the feeble politics of a very narrow elite.
His view of the Partition has some truth in that it was signed off by most Congress leaders (not Gandhi famously), but beyond that it's weak tea. He doesn't note the extensive compromises made with basically all social groups (eg workers, farmers, industrialists, lawyers, artists, various tribes and castes, regional interests, women, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Anglo-Indians, etc) by the Congress. This was part of its ideological quest to represent the whole political nation, and Gandhi if anything pushed his influence to the limit in order to find compromises and bargains within a liberal democratic frame. The major exception of course was in dealing with the question of Muslim representation and politics. Anderson had the wrong frame in seeing the Congress as implacably Hindu because of its failure in its relations with Muslims; he needed to go deeper into why the Muslim question was different. In my view, Farzana Shaikh offers a compelling and important answer to that.
He doesn't speak much to the nature of the Republic outside "secularism" and "nationalism". He underrates the lack of military rule. He assumes that dynasty was a foregone conclusion after Nehru when his daughter was never designated as a successor and faced many high-profile barriers to her rule (so many that it is surprising to see no mention of them). He doesn't discuss much of the earnest projects of economic development and social reform, efforts which had real resources and political capital put behind them but are so obvious as targets for criticism given the lackluster results. He discusses caste in politics without giving much attention to ideology and the phenomenon of these micro electorates uniting into larger social-political groupings with broader public agendas. For one of the left, he surprisingly doesn't study the regionally varied history of land reforms in any detail nor does he have much concern for the history of communist organization and uprisings. Even on the secularism point, he doesn't make much of state symbolism consciously appropriating that of multiple historic empires of all religious affiliations. These are all important, and neglected, points in an analysis of the Indian polity and its national myths.
Importantly, he criticizes efforts at centralization and the lack of deep egalitarian reform. But centralization and coercion (things he doesn't actually care about, only mentioned to cast spears at liberals) are necessary for the sorts of societal restructuring he truly wants to see. Rather than going "they basically never tried to reform", the clearer explanation is that they actually did try and it was botched deeply.
Aside from all this, I take issue with his characterization of pre-British history. Someone like Sheldon Pollock is enough to dispel his ignorance on questions like that of cultural unity in the classical era. He has little awareness of this time period, characterizing the Mauryans and Guptas as exclusively Buddhist and Hindu respectively when both patronized many religious groups. He, for whatever reason, then goes on later to describe classical India as fundamentally Hindu in its thought and literate culture, when others certainly were active (especially and including the aforementioned Buddhists). This sloppiness reflects poorly and ironically fits with the kind of visions of historical India that he spills much ink criticizing. Some of his uncited assertions here are embarrassing. Some of his cited ones, for example from the overzealous historian BB Misra on the conquest of India, are still not credible. It was the perception of threat from Indian states (aligned with France) which was a consistent driver of the expansion of the British Indian Empire, not that they lacked capacity to threaten the British. These forces were organizationally inferior but could be similarly armed and often had superior tactical leadership. This is the standard assessment of the era's military history.
Reading this is likely to be an exercise in misinforming oneself even if I do agree that his targets (the myths, ideology of exceptionalism) are not unwisely chosen. And once again, even if it's wrong it's a kind of wrong that makes for relatively pleasant reading.
June 15, 2016
A must read for Indians, it shatters all conventional wisdom of pre-colonial, British India and post colonial India. I suppose some Indians might vehemently oppose Perry Anderson's views but it is worth reading.
"It advances five main agreements 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. Secondly, that Gandhi's injection of religion into the national movement was ultimately a disaster for it. Thirdly, that primary responsibility for partition lay not with the Raj, but Congress. Fourthly, That Nehru's legacy to Republic was far more ambiguous than his admirers will admit. Lastly, that Indian democracy is not contradicted by caste inequality, but rather enabled by it"
"It advances five main agreements 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. Secondly, that Gandhi's injection of religion into the national movement was ultimately a disaster for it. Thirdly, that primary responsibility for partition lay not with the Raj, but Congress. Fourthly, That Nehru's legacy to Republic was far more ambiguous than his admirers will admit. Lastly, that Indian democracy is not contradicted by caste inequality, but rather enabled by it"
January 12, 2013
I still find the Idea of India sexy. It maybe the case of a story told again and again till it has become true or imagined to be true. Of course, if one dissects it so masterfully, one sees the critique of events and personalities as an exercise of possibilities and missed opportunities. I can only thank for such a compelling take.
May 18, 2016
Certainly thought-provoking, though I have to admit that I don't have the resources or experience to completely assess its accuracy.
September 20, 2021
Author is a Marxist that's why his hindu hatred is visible.
This book is sure a curious case. Other leftists hate love Nehru-Gandhi bcoz of their Hindu hatred. But this one hate them bcoz they are somehow remained Hindu.
He hate Nehru-Gandhi when discussing independence but didn't criticize Ambedkar as Ambedkar was too anti-freedom.
Criticize constitution for copy-pasting from other country but didn't criticize Its so-called Chief Architect. Reason is Ambedkar is ally to him in his Hindu hatred.
And I disagree with author when he doubt why India use force. Actually , Peace is an Idea and war is fact.
For Partition , People should read Creating a New Medina by Dhulipala. It is an extensive work when writer just covered in 50 pages.
And for independence they can refer to RC Majumdar.
And for republic , yes our copy-paste constitution is good for nothing. We need a new constitution.
This book is sure a curious case. Other leftists hate love Nehru-Gandhi bcoz of their Hindu hatred. But this one hate them bcoz they are somehow remained Hindu.
He hate Nehru-Gandhi when discussing independence but didn't criticize Ambedkar as Ambedkar was too anti-freedom.
Criticize constitution for copy-pasting from other country but didn't criticize Its so-called Chief Architect. Reason is Ambedkar is ally to him in his Hindu hatred.
And I disagree with author when he doubt why India use force. Actually , Peace is an Idea and war is fact.
For Partition , People should read Creating a New Medina by Dhulipala. It is an extensive work when writer just covered in 50 pages.
And for independence they can refer to RC Majumdar.
And for republic , yes our copy-paste constitution is good for nothing. We need a new constitution.
August 31, 2025
His secularism is Eurocentric, applied selectively to India. Somnath was a site repeatedly destroyed under Islamic conquests; its rebuilding was as much about postcolonial civilizational repair as about religion. Statues and memorials, whether of Washington, Lincoln, or Patel, are not “idols” but state-building rituals. To call all such acts “effigies” is to render every nation’s commemoration illegitimate, something Anderson conveniently does not apply to the West.
The author wants India to commit geopolitical suicide by not annexing states like Hyderabad. Anderson reads Partition as a moral catastrophe indicting Congress leadership, but the deeper reality is that rejecting Partition would have left India saddled with endless, violent “self-governing communal enclaves.”
He sells the idea of justice but is really just peddling communal (Muslim) vote-banks.
The author wants India to commit geopolitical suicide by not annexing states like Hyderabad. Anderson reads Partition as a moral catastrophe indicting Congress leadership, but the deeper reality is that rejecting Partition would have left India saddled with endless, violent “self-governing communal enclaves.”
He sells the idea of justice but is really just peddling communal (Muslim) vote-banks.
June 18, 2018
This book is a gem if you want to learn about Indian independence history from a leftist point of view. Anderson talks about how less gandhi, nehru and congress cared about the people of India. They were no different than the current day politicians and their main objective at that time was also to accumulate as much power as possible. All Indian history which I read in school seems like a joke to me.
February 10, 2020
basically he thinks gandhi & nehru were idiots, independence could probably have been won without them, and congress was a plague that doomed india from the start, retaining the worst structures of the raj, doing nothing to address development of any kind, indian democracy a facade of input legitimacy (vs chinese output legitimacy) and pseudo-secularism hiding a fundamental hindu nationalism dependent on the divisions & immiserations of caste to perpetuate itself. good shit!!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 21, 2024
Perry cooked. This is mainly a critique of the modern Indian state and the patriotism associated with it, which mainly serves to mask the fact that India isn’t as unified as it presents itself to be. Upon finishing this, I would like to read more that challenges the “pakistan did it” narrative of partition, and more about the adivasi question in northeastern india (one of my favorite geographical areas of study).
good book :P
good book :P
September 22, 2019
A polemic view of Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress movement led by him. The desire of the author to present an alternate view of the independence movement in India is interesting but prejudiced by his all glowing opinions of the other actors in this struggle who are the ones usually discarded in the contemporary narrative.
March 12, 2025
This joins Brazil Apart as a collection of Anderson's LRB texts that were re-published as standalones. The story retold is a relatively familiar one for us: Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, Bose, the Partition, Kashmir, the BJP, Anderson offering a critique of Hindu nationalism as the fount of "the Indian ideology."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews