A New Idea of India, Harsh Madhusudhan & Rajeev Mantri

One of the key themes of India’s trajectory in the 21st century is a debate over what it means to be Indian. As the title suggests, A New Idea of India tackles this question head on by offering a new conception of the Indian state that offers a sharp break from the traditional Nehruvian vision.

Madhusudan and Mantri’s new vision is divided into three main segments: a reconceiving of India as a civilisation state, a redefinition of Indian secularism, and a reorientation of the Indian economy towards markets and away from government direction.

The core basis of their vision for India relies on seeing India first as a civilisation state. They argue that while India the modern nation emerged in 1947, the notion of a coherent Indian civilisation is far older from the time of the Vedas in 1500 BC. In this way, the modern Indian nation is simply the manifestation of the Indian civilisation. It is this civilisational ethos that has kept all the ethnicities of India bound together, despite the predictions of those such as Winston Churchill who argued that “India is a geographical term. It is no more united than the equator”.

Historically, there have been very few states (Mauryas, Mughals, and British Raj) that have been able to unify Indian civilisation and today’s nation-state is the latest. According to Madhusudhan and Mantri, the role of the State (which they always capitalise to refer explicitly to the government and institutions of governance) is to catalyse the transformation of Indian civilisation into a “functional, prosperous, and peaceful nation”.

When using Indian civilisation as the basis for the Indian nation-state, it is obviously important to identify exactly what one means by Indian civilisation. The authors are very clear that this refers to dharmic civilisation. They are careful to nuance claims about India being a “Hindu Rashtra” – Hindu nation – by saying that if Hindu is meant in “a broader dharmic and Indic sense” then it is true. This dharmic interpretation integrates Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism into the Indic civilisation along with Hinduism.

This is already a notable departure from the traditional elite consensus, which was very careful to avoid defining India in this way to not alienate segments of society such as the Muslims. However while inclusivity is absolutely a critical goal for the modern Indian state, I believe the authors are right that it is unwise to try and completely brush India’s civilisational heritage under the rug. They note that none less than Nehru himself “had paid homage to India’s civilisational strength and unity”. In this respect, India can take inspiration from the US. Although home to people of many diverse faiths – including many Indic ones – the US is without question a Judaeo-Christian nation. Similarly, I agree with the authors that it is possible to have an inclusive India that accepts its Indic origins. The inherent pluralism of dharmic traditions, which stands in contrast to the exclusivist Abrahamic religions, also sets Indic civilisation apart and makes it an ideal candidate to nurture a diverse nation.

The second key theme of the book is its stance against secularism as currently implemented by the Indian state. I must admit this segment was somewhat eye opening for me. The core contention is that contemporary Indian secularism is a perverted form of secularism, if the goal is a set of laws that are religion neutral. The authors point out that there are different civil laws based on religion in India, which to be fair is a common example and is a nuanced discussion. However there are other examples which shocked me more, such as Hindu temples being under government control while those of other faiths are not. The only principled “secular” position is of course to have no religious institutions under any type of government control, yet I was shocked to see this disparity.

They also noted many government schemes which were targeted exclusively at minority religious communities like Muslims. One can of course make the argument that it is the responsibility of the government to protect minorities against a tyranny of the majority. This is undoubtedly true, and is why for instance the US is right to institute constitutional protections for its minorities. In this vein too, India is also right to institute protections for minorities when defined by a characteristic linked to birth, such as ethnicity or caste. When minority status is defined by a fluid characteristic like religious affiliation which can be changed, the incentives fall out of line and set the scale for gross mismanagement. It was this distinction that I hadn’t appreciated previously, and I agree that while privileges on the basis of caste are still – unfortunately – necessary in India, privileges on the basis of religion are less justifiable. Nevertheless, I did feel that at times the authors took a bit of an antagonistic tone towards Muslims, and that some of their points could have been made in less emotionally charged language.

The final part of the book, and the one I enjoyed and agreed with the most, was the segment on economic reform and growth. Madhusudhan and Mantri are entirely unapologetic in rejecting the traditional Nehruvian public sector focused model, which I don’t think is a controversial position. They note that the “licence-permit-quota raj” allowed an “extractive State” to ravage society and aided corruption. In contrast, they argue that India must embrace markets more openly. Some of the reforms they argue are “market reforms in land, labour, and capital…improving the ease of doing business, contract enforcement, opening up more sectors to foreign direct investment and generally brinding rules-based capitalism to India”. I personally believe that economic growth should be India’s number one priority, so I am glad to see modern intellectuals advocating for such reforms.

However, the authors aren’t simple free market acolytes of Milton Friedman. They note that in certain cases, a strong State is needed for interventions in the economy. One policy suggestion they give is “limited tariffs” to protect local industry. To me this was indeed alarming since this invoked the protectionist measures of the Nehru era. However, the authors made a comparison with Alexander Hamilton’s protectionist industrial policy after American independence, which made me soften my position a bit. The Korean chaebols and Japanese zaibatsu, which had considerable government support but did become globally competitive, also made me pause and think. As such, a limited degree of protection is alright, provided that it is limited and Indian champions become globally competitive like their Japanese and Korean peers.

One theme that I particularly loved throughout the book was the authors’ determination to eradicate the birth based caste system which has plagued India for centuries. One of their more interesting arguments was that economic growth can indeed help alleviate this. I was initially skeptical how GDP growth could by itself undo such a long standing social practice. However, they gave the example of waiters at restaurants. Traditionally, one of the most taboo things has been to eat food served by lower caste people, yet in Indian restaurants today it is exceedingly rare if not nonexistent that a customer actually asks about their waiter’s caste. Why? One reason is that capitalism and competition has made it too costly to make that a factor. If Indians truly still cared about this awful practice, they’d be willing to pay a premium. Yet no one does this, certainly not in the cities. This was a real feel good moment for me and gave me real hope for India.

Overall, A New Idea of India challenged many of the conceptions of India I had grown up with. I had not really thought of India as a civilisational state until recently, and this book solidified this perception of mine. It also made me realise the many contortions and inconsistencies in the way that India has been run, from its uniquely inept brand of “secularism” to the unfortunate historical choice of socialist economics. My favourite part though was the segment on economic reform, which is where I believe the authors made their best suggestions. I believe that India is at a stage in its development where high GDP growth will be an almost panacea for many of its problems. From prosperity to global influence, economic growth is the source of it all. Overall, the authors paint a picture of a united civilisational India with an emphasis on individual rights, open markets, and a competent State to hold it all together. This is an idea of India I could subscribe to.