• In 1827, poet Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib journeyed from Delhi to Calcutta, reaching Banaras after six months.
• Ghalib wrote a poem titled ‘Chirag-i-Dair’ (Temple Lamps) reflecting on the decline of unity and federation in India.
• His poem lamented the internal conflicts and lack of goodness, questioning why Doomsday had not yet arrived.
• Ghalib’s poem was set against the backdrop of the Mughal Empire’s decline, with India divided among contending chiefdoms.
• During Ghalib’s time, the British were asserting control over the subcontinent, culminating in the 1857 uprising.
• The 1857 uprising, called the Sepoy Mutiny by the British and the First War of Indian Independence by nationalists, saw intense fighting in Delhi.
• Ghalib’s sympathies were conflicted; he received a stipend from the British but was rooted in Mughal culture.
• He observed atrocities committed by both sides and questioned what new order could bring joy to India.
• After 1857, the British Crown assumed direct control of India, replacing the East India Company.
• The new administration was marked by a sophisticated bureaucracy and the creation of new districts and provinces.
• The Indian Civil Service, along with police, forest, and irrigation departments, oversaw the state’s running.
• Significant investment was made in building a railway network, enhancing the unity and stability of British India.
• The railway network allowed for rapid troop movement to prevent uprisings like that of 1857.

II

• By 1888, the British were firmly established in India, anticipating long-term rule.
• Sir John Strachey, a former member of the Governor General’s Council, published a book titled India, based on his experiences in the subcontinent.
• Strachey’s book included an administrative history of the Raj, discussing its army, civil services, land and taxation policies, and native states.
• He argued that ‘India’ was merely a label for a diverse region with no real unity, comparing it to the smaller differences between European countries.
• Strachey believed that there was no historical or future unity in India and that an Indian nation was impossible.
• His remarks were a historical judgment and a political exhortation to those working for the Raj, warning of the threat posed by rising Indian nationalism.
• The Indian National Congress, formed by Indians, aimed to unite across cultural, territorial, and religious divides to create a single Indian nation.
• Despite efforts by leaders like Gokhale, Tilak, and Gandhi, the Congress struggled to fully unite low castes and Muslims, leading to the creation of India and Pakistan in 1947.
• Some British, including Rudyard Kipling, doubted the possibility of Indian self-governance, emphasizing the need for British rule to maintain order.
• Winston Churchill, a prominent critic of Indian self-government, viewed Indian civilization as too ancient to govern itself and opposed granting independence.
• In the 1940s, Churchill criticized the idea of Indian self-government, arguing it would lead to chaos and a decline into barbarism.
• He warned that abandoning India to Indian leaders would result in the collapse of public services and a return to the Middle Ages.

III

• Fifteen years after Winston Churchill’s warnings, the British left India.
• Initial chaos followed independence, but order was restored without the need for foreign intervention.
• Hindu ascendancy was maintained through regular elections based on universal adult franchise.
• Speculation has persisted about India’s ability to stay united and maintain democratic institutions.
• Concerns about India’s stability arose with each prime minister’s death, monsoon failures, and secessionist movements.
• Western writers and scholars, both American and British, have questioned India’s viability as a unified democratic nation.
• Political scientist Robert Dahl found it improbable that India could sustain democratic institutions given its conditions.
• Despite skepticism, India continued to defy predictions of dissolution or authoritarianism.
• British journalist Don Taylor, writing in 1969, expressed doubts about India’s unity given its vast diversity but noted an enduring resilience.
• Taylor believed India’s survival was crucial for Asia, acknowledging its complex and diverse nature.
• Some Indians have also viewed the survival of India as precarious, with differing perspectives from patriots fearing disintegration to secessionists anticipating it.

• In the 1990s, the author lived in New Delhi, not the old walled city where Ghalib’s mansion stands.
• Rajpath, the road symbolizing state power, featured tents representing various dissenting groups.
• Tents included peasants seeking a separate province, farmers demanding higher prices, and others asking for language recognition.
• The government dismantled these tents in the early 1990s to maintain a clean image for foreign visitors.
• Protesters relocated to Jantar Mantar in Connaught Place and later to Mandir Marg–Shankar Road crossing.
• Despite relocations, the underlying issues persisted.
• The author wished to document the changing protests on Rajpath over a year, but the book covers six decades of social conflict.
• Four primary axes of conflict in India: caste, language, religion, and class.
• Caste involves jati (endogamous group) and varna (social stratification), with many jatis challenging each other.
• Language conflict arises from the 22 officially recognized languages, with tensions between speakers of different languages.
• Religious conflict involves the Hindu majority and significant Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain communities.
• Class conflict is marked by massive social disparities between wealthy entrepreneurs and the poor, including inequalities in landholding and income.
• Gender is an additional axis of conflict, with stark contrasts between progress and traditional discrimination.
• India’s twentieth-century social conflicts parallel European industrialization and nation-state formation.
• India’s democracy, free press, and independent judiciary make its conflicts more visible and addressed.
• Historical maps of conflict would show variations in conflict intensity and areas of peace.
• Despite conflicts, no part of India has successfully seceded, and over 50% of the country remains relatively peaceful.
• The economic success of India is often highlighted, but its political stability is considered a more significant achievement.
• India defied predictions of dictatorship due to its low income, literacy, and high social conflict.
• The book aims to highlight both the forces of division and the moderating forces that have maintained unity and democracy in India.

• Sunil Khilnani views the period since 1947 as a significant democratic experiment, comparing it to the American and French revolutions.
• Indian democracy is considered a crucial part of the larger democratic experiment due to its human scale and location on the Asian continent.
• There is a vast amount of literature on the American and French revolutions, but Indian democracy is less studied.
• Indian history education often ends with Partition and Independence, and current history is divided between political science and sociology.
• Historians focus mainly on pre-Independence India, with extensive literature on British colonialism and anti-colonial opposition.
• The death of Gandhi shortly after Independence has influenced historical focus, with interest remaining on the British Raj and Gandhi.
• History of independent India remains largely untapped, despite significant events and changes post-1947.
• The early years of independence were marked by dramatic events, including ongoing conflicts and integration of princely states.
• Unlike Europe, India has large gaps in historical knowledge, including incomplete histories of states and key figures.
• The author acknowledges gaps in current historical accounts and aims to provide a preliminary overview, understanding future works will build upon it.
• The book strives to fill in these gaps, recognizing that future studies will likely revise and expand upon its findings.

• Historian F. W. Maitland’s maxim, ‘what is now in the past was once in the future,’ is crucial for understanding contemporary history.
• Historians of recent events face readers with strong, pre-formed opinions about the subjects they write about.
• Readers of contemporary history have individual political and ideological preferences that influence their views on the past.
• Unlike those studying distant history, contemporary historians deal with audiences who may have preset notions about figures and events.
• Historians writing about recent events face challenges from readers who may not be open to alternative perspectives.
• The historian’s personal views can also affect their work, especially when writing about recent or ongoing events.
• The author of the book strives to follow Maitland’s maxim by prioritizing curiosity and understanding over judgement.
• The book emphasizes the importance of interpreting events based on contemporary knowledge rather than modern perspectives.
• The book aims to provide a comprehensive account and analysis of independent India’s history, respecting its social and political diversity.
• It seeks to address the puzzle of why India exists as a unified nation despite its complex diversity.