If tectonic events바카라transformative at the 바카라deep structure바카라 level바카라are to be privileged as markers of time, the 바카라long decade바카라 offered in this book is beyond reproach. The twentieth century, they say, was properly born only in 1914, kicking and screaming like Stravinsky바카라s pagan sacrifice. And collapsed into clouds of anomic dust on 9/11. Here, we get the 바카라1950s바카라 as a five-act play that begins in the night-infused dawn of 1947. When the curtains go up, it바카라s midnight actually: a modern nation is in its first rites of passage, and it바카라s astrology that decided on that cusp time of August 15 as its birth date. With that founding irony hanging in the air, the 바카라founding fathers바카라 are writing a new genetic code, fretting and arguing over its inner grammar, even as millions of refugees stream in from east and west. And it's the 1962 war (not its details, nor its genesis, just the date) that provides the coda.
But the temporal canvas, and how the embroiderer바카라s hoop circles out a portion of it for concentrated work, is not the point of emphasis. The five chapters are not dedicated to blocks or sub-units of time within this frame. They are, rather, arranged thematically. The first one is a study of the refugee crisis of Partition. Not at the level of human tragedy, but at how the system coped바카라a State in its infancy being baptised through a challenge unprecedented in history.
Three elements stand out here. One is how the successful resettlement of Punjab refugees across the north, culminating triumphally with the imagining of the new city of Chandigarh, contrasts with the mess in Bengal바카라where the event horizon (it바카라s a 바카라long Partition바카라 that stretched over a decade) and economic particulars (the 바카라unending trail바카라 of refugees in the 바카라50s are largely from the underclass) offer a substantially different set of problems. Second, how the situation of Muslims left behind in India바카라fearful and profoundly uncertain of their future바카라forever alters the terms in which minority rights will be articulated. (An under-appreciated fact: Muslim leaders in the Constituent Assembly voluntarily surrendered the benefit of separate electorates.) Third, how the spectre of fragmentation bled into policy and Constitution-writing, creating a 바카라unitary bias바카라: India would be a Union of states, with a strong Centre, rather than a 바카라federation바카라.
Chapter two looks at the intense work that went on for years in the cartographer바카라s lab: from the 바카라butcher바카라s job바카라 of Radcliffe that offers the outline, to Patel바카라s immense mission and 바카라Pericles-like statesmanship바카라바카라flexible of tactic, unbending in overall strategy바카라that harnesses the interiors, to how language willy-nilly provides the impetus for the final reorganisation of states in 1956. Brief movements dwell on the great counterfactual of our times바카라바카라what if Patel had been PM?바카라바카라his dissenting position on Kashmir, including his openness to it joining Pakistan, and on how the lesser known massacres of Hyderabad, Junagadh and Alwar-Bharatpur complicate the narrative of integration as a 바카라bloodless revolution바카라.
Chapters three and four span the gamut of themes that animate discussions even today: democracy, citizenship, secularism, caste, language and how the political landscape바카라the Congress 바카라system바카라 and a small but increasingly vibrant Opposition바카라negotiates these questions, an evolving, cooptive State extending itself to assimilate each note of dissonance. The last chapter looks at economy. We see the rampant inflation and famine of the War years instigating the 바카라Nehruvian consensus바카라 on enhanced State control (one view even favours a 바카라blanket control on all prices바카라). We see the inception of centralised planning: the focus is set intently on agriculture first (some of the biggest dams of Asia leap to life from the blueprint), and then Mahalanobis resets it to industry to build those steel cities (a scientist, not an economist, it바카라s his pioneering work in statistics that brings him in).
We also see the larger, extra-economic factors as being constitutive of this frame. For, Nehru had another motivation바카라he saw central planning as a key component of the integrative principle. For him, a vision that thought of all India at once, and stressed on the 바카라interrelation of one part of India with another바카라, would have a 바카라psychological appeal바카라 and lead people away from 바카라the crooked path of provinicialism바카라. The same way the EU brought about a way of thinking about Europe, or indeed as GST does now바카라going beyond pure considerations of the 바카라market versus state바카라 debate. At each stage, the policy choices are historicised and set in context바카라whether it바카라s Constitution-making or the socialist turn.
For all the richness of detail that gets woven in, this is not an aggregate of micro studies. This is not the go-to book for a lowdown on Sikkim or Goa바카라or the Nagas and Kukis바카라in the 1950s. There바카라s no Tebhaga, no Punnapra-Vayalar either, and just a fleeting reference to Telangana. Kudaisya바카라s camera is set to landscape rather than portrait. Detail appears as illustration, say, of the linguistic problem or the Partition aftermath. It바카라s the big picture that concerns the author, the institutional processes that stabilised India, the confusions, the disputations over each area of overarching policy바카라a sketch of what it took to put in place a whole lot of things we take for granted. Nehru바카라s foreign policy is beyond its remit too바카라so no Bandung, no Panchsheel.
But to an extent, without overtly saying so, the subject position is that of Nehru. To that same extent, this book owes its spiritual lineage to scholars like Sunil Khilnani and Ramachandra Guha바카라a line often criticised for preferring an affirmative picture and eliding the flaws. The criticism emanates from all sides these days: the right wing that excoriates the 바카라left-liberal바카라 line for not being Hindu enough, the Ambedkarite school that flays it for being too Hindu and savarna, and a sort of floating 바카라post-national바카라 mood that prefers the Perry Anderson line of Nehru-baiting (with a strain of India-denying thrown in). The book betrays no direct awareness of these, much less engage in direct polemic바카라or indeed, accept genuine points of criticism. They exist only as an implied hinterland against which Kudaisya sketches his gentle assertions. By depersonalising his book to some extent, by making it about the processes, he largely evades the Nehru debate. But tacitly, pixel by pixel, a favourable picture of an institution-builder is offered to us. Nehru바카라s letters to the chief ministers get full play, as the gift of a fair, federal-minded benevolence바카라his dismissal of the EMS ministry earns just a pro forma mention.
The nation-builders did have a mammoth, complex task바카라of evolving theory on the hard ground of praxis, while the khichdi was still cooking. The book바카라s ideological heart seems aligned to that mission. In the aftermath of Partition, identity is a 바카라problem바카라. Rather than access it through caste (which would reveal a genuine canker on the body of democracy), the idea is explored via language바카라where the sense of fractiousness is more easily demonstrated for an India yet to solidify. And Ambedkar gets a diminuating treatment (his pen portrait is oddly paired with Rajaji바카라s). He gets an approving mention when he contributes to the integrative principle by arguing against linguistic division바카라one of the paths not taken on the road to 바카라vernacular democracy바카라, an unfortunate coinage. Overall, though, this will serve both as an expert summation of how India바카라s formative infrastructure was laid amid near-constant firefighting바카라no reader will ever again look at the 바카라50s as a placid decade of romantic films and tender songs바카라as well as a fine gateway book.
