Why Sunil Khilnani had the wrong idea about India

Sunil Khlinani says of his 1997 book 'The idea of India' that-

I wanted to show that the founding idea of India is anchored as much in resisting certain powerful seductions – the temptations for a clear, singular definition of nationhood, for the apparent neatness of authoritarian politics, for the clarities of a statist or pure market economy, for unambiguous alliances with other states – as it was in realizing declaratory visions.

The founding idea of Indian nationhood was Indian nationalism. This in turn was based on a Hindu notion of 'Bharatvarsha' or 'Jambudvipa'- a contiguous area where it was possible to relocate without loss of caste and where there pre-existed significant 'teerths'- spiritual loci defining a sacred geography.

The founding idea of Pakistan was political Islam modernized by the application of Democratic 'ijma' (consensus as a source of law) - a perfectly coherent blueprint for a Welfare State with a flourishing Private sector, a progressive Civil Society, as well as strong State Institutions. However, it had two non contiguous wings. Still, had it devolved all powers- save that of Defense and Foreign Affairs- and taken a democratic path, then it would not have broken up.

Interestingly, Islam has a concept of 'dar ul harb'- an area it is not advisable to settle because to do so jeopordizes one's Religious standing- similar to the Hindu concept of losing caste by reason of migration to a non-Hindu realm.

Khilnani rejects the notion that Indian Nationalism is based on Hindu 'sacred geography'. Would he also reject the notion that Pakistani Nationalism is based on Islam? Both countries have fluctuated between definitions of nationhood and have had periods of authoritarianism (mercifully brief in India because Indira Gandhi understood that her power came from the ballot box) and undergone spells of Socialist mania and have had complicated relationships with Superpowers.

Indeed the same could be said of Myanmar and Sri Lanka and many African countries.

Khilnani's idea of India cashes out as having no actual idea of India but just going ahead and scribbling some nonsense anyway. This is not nice work, though if you can get it and it pays the bills then who are we to cavil?

Currently, Modi and BJP has an idea of India. This is why they win National Elections even though the economy is faltering. No other party has an idea of India. This is not Khilnani's fault. He is a symptom not the disease.

Why do Hindu intellectuals not have an idea of India? Muslims do. They understand that Hindus want Muslims to work hard, start businesses and excel in the Arts and the Sciences. Islam is respected in India because it has produced great scholars, artists, sportsmen, administrators and politicians. The Urdu language, neglected by the State, has gained popularity because private enterprise has made it the vehicle for soul stirring oratory and lyrics that touch the heart. Christianity, more especially as represented by Schools and Colleges and organizations like the Indian Y.M.C.A, is even more respected.

Why is it that whereas non-Hindus understand that Indian nationalism wants them to achieve outstanding success competing with the best in the world, Hindu intellectuals refuse to accept that minorities in India expect privileged members of the majority to lift up the country and make it competitive on a global level?

Why are Hindu public intellectuals so utterly shite? The answer is they are lazy and stupid. They prefer to moan about the lot of the minorities rather than use their own majority status to lift up the country. Virtue signalling is 'cheap talk'. Actually competing with other nations would involve 'costly signals'- actually doing scientific research or establishing business enterprises or reforming the Public Sector.

Hindus are the majority in India. It is up to them to reform the country and make it capable of competing with China. This is the only favor they can do the minorities.