Asian Conversations - an online magazine to explore Asia's future
A MAGAZINE ON ASIAN CHANGE . JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Time to talk about
the elephant in the room

As the world's largest democracy strives to give 1.2 billion Indians a stake in modern society, caste and divisions are still alive.

By SHASHI THAROOR
New Delhi, October 2010

Canadian synchronised swimmers competing in the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, India, October 2010

Whoops! Something in the water? Canadian synchronised swimmers at the Delhi Commonwealth Games October 2010. - Photo: Getty Images

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. A generation of secular nationalists echoed him, making "unity in diversity" the most hallowed of independent India's self-defining slogans.

Shashi Tharoor

Shashi Tharoor


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 and offers the victims of social oppression and caste tyranny a means of escape

How did India preserve and protect a viable idea of itself in the course of the last 63 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.

In the six-plus 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, ethnicity. The political system has become looser and more fragmented. Politicians mobilise support along ever-narrower lines of political identity. It has become more important to be a "backward caste", a "tribal", or a religious sectarian than to be an Indian; and of course, to some it is more important to be a "proud" Hindu than to be an Indian. This is particularly ironic because one of the early strengths of Nehruvian India — the survival of the nationalist movement as a political party, the Congress Party serving as an all-embracing, all-inclusive agglomeration of the major political tendencies in the country — stifled the normal process of contention over political principle. With the emergence and growth of other political forces, politicians have been tempted to organise themselves around identities other than party (or to create parties to reflect a specific identity).

Caste, which Nehru and his ilk abhorred and believed would disappear from the social matrix of modern India, has not merely survived and thrived, but has become an instrument for highly effective political mobilisation. Candidates are picked by their parties with an eye toward the caste loyalties they can call upon; often their appeal is overtly to voters of their own caste or sub-caste, urging them to elect one of their own. The result has been the growth of caste-consciousness and casteism throughout society. In many States, caste determines educational opportunities, job prospects, and governmental promotions; all too often, people say you cannot go forward unless you're a "backward".

Ironically, a distinctive feature of the Nehruvian legacy was its visionary rejection of India's assorted bigotries and particularisms. The Nehrus were, by upbringing and conviction, completely secular. Not only did Indira Gandhi marry a Parsi, but her daughters-in-law were an Italian Christian and a Punjabi Sikh. The one strand of political opinion Nehru and his offspring abhorred was that of Hindu religious revivalism. All four generations of Nehrus in public life remained secular in outlook and conduct. Their appeal transcended caste, region, language, and religion, something impossible to say of any other leading Indian politician.

Whether through elections or quotas, political mobilisation in contemporary India has asserted the power of old identities, habits, faiths, and prejudices. Transcending them will be the major challenge for the Indian polity in the 21st Century.

What makes India, then, a nation? As the country celebrates the 63rd anniversary of its independence today, we may well ask: What is an Indian's identity?

When an Italian nation was created in the second half of the 19th century out of a mosaic of principalities and statelets, one Italian nationalist wrote: "We have created Italy. Now all we need to do is to create Italians." It is striking that, a few decades later, no Indian nationalist succumbed to the temptation to express a similar thought. The prime exponent of modern Indian nationalism, Nehru, would never have spoken of "creating Indians", because he believed that India and Indians had existed for millennia before he articulated their political aspirations in the 20th century.

If America is a “melting-pot”, then to me India is a thali, a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls. Each tastes different, and does not necessarily mix with the next, but they belong together on the same plate, and they complement each other.

Nonetheless, the India that was born in 1947 was in a very real sense a new creation: a state that made fellow citizens of the Ladakhi and the Laccadivian, divided Punjabi from Punjabi and asked a Keralite peasant to feel allegiance to a Kashmiri Pandit ruling in Delhi, all for the first time.

So Indian nationalism was not based on any of the conventional indices of national identity. Not language, since our constitution now recognises 23 official languages, and as many as 35 languages spoken by more than a million people each. Not ethnicity, since the "Indian" accommodates a diversity of racial types in which many Indians (Punjabis and Bengalis, in particular) have more ethnically in common with foreigners than with their other compatriots. Not religion, since India is a secular pluralist state that is home to every religion known to mankind, with the possible exception of Shintoism. Not geography, since the natural geography of the subcontinent – framed by the mountains and the sea – was hacked by the partition of 1947. And not even territory, since, by law, anyone with one grandparent born in pre-partition India – outside the territorial boundaries of today's state – is eligible for citizenship. Indian nationalism has therefore always been the nationalism of an idea.

It is the idea of an ever-ever land – emerging from an ancient civilization, united by a shared history, sustained by pluralist democracy. India's democracy imposes no narrow conformities on its citizens. The whole point of Indian pluralism is you can be many things and one thing: you can be a good Muslim, a good Keralite and a good Indian all at once.

The Indian idea is the opposite of what Freudians call "the narcissism of minor differences"; in India we celebrate the commonality of major differences. If America is famously a “melting-pot”, then to me India is a thali, a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls. Each tastes different, and does not necessarily mix with the next, but they belong together on the same plate, and they complement each other in making the meal a satisfying repast.

So the idea of India is of one land embracing many. Geography helps, because it accustoms Indians to the idea of difference. The Indian idea is that a nation may endure differences of caste, creed, colour, conviction, culture, cuisine, costume and custom, and still rally around a consensus. And that consensus is around the simple idea that in a democracy you don't really need to agree – except on the ground rules of how you will disagree.

India's founding fathers wrote a constitution for their dreams; we have given passports to their ideals. Today these ideals are contested by stone-throwing young men in the streets of Srinagar and rifle-wielding Maoists in the forests of Chhattisgarh. We must remain faithful to our founding values of the 20th century if we are to conquer the 21st.


Prolific author, Indian member of parliament from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, and former Minister of State for External Affairs, Shashi Tharoor has also served as a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, and as a senior advisor to the UN Secretary-General. His website is www.tharoor.in

Post a comment

You have 800 characters left for this comment.
The Editors welcome thought-provoking comments, but racist, abusive, intolerant, hate language will not be carried on our pages. All feedback that adds to lively, constructive dialogue will be posted after vetting.
CAPTCHA Image Click to refresh this random text
| < << 1 2 3 4 >> > |
Roshan George (19 October, 2010) – India
This is a great article.I agree that we have diversity but to quote "unity in diversity", we need to improve a lot.I hope and pray that the things will change.
What we really lack is Social responsibility.Most of us are cowards who fail to take responsibility for the society we live.Citizen think that politicians and beurocrats and police officials are the right person to think and act responsible.I agree these men are responsible and might be taking huge responsibilities at home or at work.But what happens when they are least bothered about their responsibility towards society?They get a good place to work, good family and a worst society to live.Its high time we must introduce some learning cmpaigns to make our people socially responsible in all means.Our growth will be surprising.
Isabelle Anne Abraham (19 October, 2010) – Mozambique
Very good piece. I'd like to read more articles like this one. Makes me even more proud of my nationality: India has its low points (like any other nation) but it has endured, continues to endure- and is still a beautiful land with many beautiful people.
Maneesh J (19 October, 2010) – India
I don't think that democracy in India is flawless.Rampant corruption is ruling india.It starts from the top.The sarkari babus follow the ministerial landlords and this wont stop unless v cleanse it from top.Obviously this wont stop.All parties including yours,bjp,cpm etc r rich becoz they sell ideals 4 money & power.Being a proud hindu doesn't mean that u have to hate other religions.HIndus r the most tolerant ones that is why the rulers are riding on them.Compare hajj subidy & sabarimala pilgrimage.I live in a state where both udf&ldf declared hartal when saddham hussain was executed.I face realities that seldom finds place in mainstream media which always stands with the powerful pseudo secularists.what progress without eradicating poverty,regional/caste politics,corruption e – This comment has been edited
udayachandran menon (19 October, 2010) – india
Why do we need an intellectual argument to describe or understand the concept of India? For the majority here in this country, a bias, programmed through culture or birth is what identifies them. This bias is a narrow, thin identity of the self and anything in contradiction to that will always be unacceptable. That is why there are no Indians in India. Sad, because even the smallest group of people in this country bound together by just an unknown language or culture could have become great people instead of rotting in this mediocrity, divisiveness and poverty. The concept of India has killed that individuality and as a consequence, their pride and their happiness.
Jibu K Itty (19 October, 2010) – India
As usual an emphatic article. I regret he is still not back to his Ministerial assignment on Foreign Affairs. What a waste of talent.


Jibu K.Itty
nitin joshi (19 October, 2010) – india
heads off to your article......sir..keep writting dis....jai hinustan..
Suvidutt (19 October, 2010) – india
Great reminder from Mr.Tharoor. I believe that India is a notion than a nation. It can wither away in no time if "we the people of India" don't hold strong the values enshrined by our founding fathers in Indian Constitution. This article is a harbinger that such a national catastrophe don't befall. Let everyone wake up!
django (19 October, 2010) – russia
Why does ST Write at all? Has this man done anyting productive in his life except for coming to mother land after he had no place in the UN. I refuse o believe that people actually read what he writes – This comment has been edited
Amit tripathi (19 October, 2010) – India
We Indian have to build a culture of continous and integrated process of planning,organising ,cordinating and implemeng measures for the achievement of Indianisation or to more certain a BHARTIYA
Nagu (19 October, 2010) – India
The only common thread joining the whole country despite language and custom differences is Hinduism.
Yes its home to all religions. But India is united because of Hinduism and its ideals.
All pseudo seculars and nehru worshippers like u gloss over this fact.

I respect Nehru. Great intellectual with his own vices whom his worshippers never understood.
| < << 1 2 3 4 >> > |

Long term impact of Gaza attack on Israel

Consequences of Palestinian conflict and finger-pointing in the blame game ... See world opinion

Curse of curation

PR-speak is turning our conversations into outright gibberish... more…