What do you think?
Rate this book
Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy
The fifth edition of Modern South Asia draws on the newest historical research and scholarship in the field to interpret and debate key developments in modern South Asian history and historical writing, covering the diverse spectrum of the subcontinent's social, economic and political past.
Jointly authored by two leading Indian and Pakistani historians, this definitive study offers a rare depth of historical understanding of the politics, cultures and economies that have shaped the lives of more than a fifth of humanity. This new edition on the 75th anniversary of independence and partition brings the narrative up to the present day, discussing recent events and addressing new themes such as the capture of state power in India by the forces of religious majoritarianism, economic development in the context of the 'rise' of Asia and strategic shifts occasioned by the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and China's increasing role in the region.
Providing fresh insights into the structure and ideology of the British raj, the meaning of subaltern resistance, the refashioning of social relations along lines of caste, class, religion and gender, the different strands of anti-colonial nationalism and the dynamics of decolonization, this is an essential resource for all students of the modern history of South Asia in an Indian Ocean and global context.
Jointly authored by two leading Indian and Pakistani historians, this definitive study offers a rare depth of historical understanding of the politics, cultures and economies that have shaped the lives of more than a fifth of humanity. This new edition on the 75th anniversary of independence and partition brings the narrative up to the present day, discussing recent events and addressing new themes such as the capture of state power in India by the forces of religious majoritarianism, economic development in the context of the 'rise' of Asia and strategic shifts occasioned by the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and China's increasing role in the region.
Providing fresh insights into the structure and ideology of the British raj, the meaning of subaltern resistance, the refashioning of social relations along lines of caste, class, religion and gender, the different strands of anti-colonial nationalism and the dynamics of decolonization, this is an essential resource for all students of the modern history of South Asia in an Indian Ocean and global context.
278 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
43 people are currently reading
1174 people want to read
About the author
Sugata Bose
52 books35 followersSugata Bose is the Gardiner Professor of Oceanic History and Affairs at Harvard University.
He was born in Calcutta, India. He studied at the Presidency College, Kolkata. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge under Eric Stokes. He is the grandnephew of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and grandson of Nationalist leader Sarat Chandra Bose.
He is the author of several books on the economic, social and political history of modern South Asia, and has pioneered work in historical studies emphasizing the centrality of the Indian Ocean. He is heading the mentors' group for revival of Presidency College.
He is married to Ayesha Jalal, a prominent Pakistani historian.
He was born in Calcutta, India. He studied at the Presidency College, Kolkata. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge under Eric Stokes. He is the grandnephew of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and grandson of Nationalist leader Sarat Chandra Bose.
He is the author of several books on the economic, social and political history of modern South Asia, and has pioneered work in historical studies emphasizing the centrality of the Indian Ocean. He is heading the mentors' group for revival of Presidency College.
He is married to Ayesha Jalal, a prominent Pakistani historian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
Read
December 22, 2018This is an okay book but "Modern South Asia" turned out to be just India and Pakistan with some mention of Bangladesh. It's wild because the introduction takes time out to briefly talk about the construction of South Asia and actual plurality of countries which occupy that region but then dismisses groundwork by saying (no joke), we're just going to talk about India and Pakistan.
It makes me wonder if we keep (and we must) with the very obvious reality of these distinct countries, could there ever be a comprehensive history of South Asia without the danger collapsing into monolith or the overshadowing of a singular narrative?
It makes me wonder if we keep (and we must) with the very obvious reality of these distinct countries, could there ever be a comprehensive history of South Asia without the danger collapsing into monolith or the overshadowing of a singular narrative?
February 17, 2014
A concise book for anyone who wants to let in themselves into the history of Modern South Asia. Good language, not a book stuffed with the usual academic jargon.
July 27, 2009
An excellent intro to South Asian historiography. The aspect of it that I found particularly useful was that Jalal and Bose were not coy about naming the names of historians whose work they found subpar and detailing the reasons why.
December 31, 2018
Before reading this book I was expecting a lot more from the authors. But the topic is too broad to be covered in a single book. Anyways some striking events have been highlighted, meanwhile authors use complex vocabulary is somehow discouraging.
October 12, 2020
So this book is called Modern South Asia. It even has the temerity to define that region in detail as comprising "India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives [and possibly Burma]". Then goes on to discuss the histories of India and Pakistan exclusively. The most quotable line in this book, an acerbic rejoinder to Orientalist South Asian narratives ("It is not unusual for peoples burdened by history in their own contexts to be transformed into peoples without history in others") is equally applicable to its own omission of every other country in the Indian subcontinental region - "subcontinental", indeed! The rest of us are subsumed into India's massive gravitational pull.
The main thematic throughline of this otherwise very clear and perceptive textbook is to challenge the characterization of precolonial India as a succession of centralized, despotic empires that were then taken over by the next centralized empire - the British company raj/then crown raj. Rather, says Bose/Jalal, the thousands of years of Indian history before the British were a pendulum generally swinging back and forth between flexible centralization and nuanced decentralization; and company raj managed to slip in at a vulnerable, decentralized period of the Mughal Empire's rule. This was a period where much land had been surrendered by the Mughals to the Marathas, and during which the Europeans' strong navies commanded the sea-lanes of the Indian ocean. And it happened with the near-sighted collusion from wealthy regional merchant classes of India who expected monetary windfalls from working with the East India Company. Greed, as usual, reaps the whirlwind: these same groups were mostly stiffed of their promised wealth, though these privileged groups obviously got out better than the peasant classes.
The company and then the crown drained India of her natural resources & riches, used India's people as a forced consumer base for its own inferior exports, and controlled the prices of India's exports for British consumers to purchase cheaply. The first recorded famine in India occurred under colonial rule, followed by many more - notably one during WW2 where almost 4 MILLION Bengalis died so the crown could feed its soldiers and Indian manufacturing city centers. Bose correctly calls this a rarely-discussed holocaust of that war. Indeed, it doesn't quite fit the narrative of the "just war" fought by the West to free those suffering under bondage in Germany and occupied German territories.
In a series of moves that can only euphemistically be described as DEVASTATINGLY AMORAL, the British also undertook a program of social engineering during the "high noon" of colonialism, ensuring that they would always be playing local religious, caste, and ethnic differences against each other. e.g., in their standing colonial armies, they would never have Sikhs putting down Sikh uprisings - they would place their chess pieces on the map in such a way that made it difficult to unify against the raj, especially placing minorities in administrative and civil positions over majorities ("Minorities came to be seen as only pawns in the end game of colonial empire").
Ultimately, the dire conditions Britain subjected India to during WW1 and WW2 while expecting India to line the Empire's armies with so much brownskinned cannon fodder lead to a series of concessions to nationalistic independence movements, including but not limited to Gandhi's populist satyagrahis. However, after India finally wrested independence from Britain, anti-colonial nationalists were understandably very afraid of losing parts of India in the frantic process of liberty; and so, left with no other state apparatus of their own to choose from, the National Congress fully inherited the raj's own nonsensical centralized administration. ("South Asians learnt the modern concept of unitary, indivisible sovereignty from their British colonial masters. In 1947 by failing to share sovereignty they ended up dividing the land.")
More bungling by Britain's Lord Mountabatten (may he be devoured by jackals in whatever afterlife exists) lead to the partition that broke Pakistan away from India, an outcome wanted by absolutely nobody in those two regions, and done on the worst possible terms, in a huge idiot rush. Pakistan, meanwhile, unlike the National Congress, inherited no state apparatus at all, and had to hurriedly invent one in the face of confusion, violence, Hindutva-motivated aggression from India, and so on. Ultimately they turned to authoritarian and martial rule almost out of necessity, and, as Bose/Jalal point out to the embarrassment of India, with about as much economic and social success as India has enjoyed besides the latter being a "democracy" (a formal if not substantive one). I read the 2nd edition of this textbook, so the narrative of events ends in 2003. Things are looking a bit better all around for Pakistan and India at the moment.
Bose/Jalal wish to challenge the idea of pre-colonial India reflecting the harsh mutual religious and ethnic conflicts/violence that it does now. Those ongoing conflicts, they say, are rather a direct product of colonialism and Britian's miserly, reluctant, racist, condescending, and overall moronic approach to "granting" India's independence, and thoroughly discontinuous with India's long history of cooperation (if occasionally strained) between all sorts of tribal identities.
The main thematic throughline of this otherwise very clear and perceptive textbook is to challenge the characterization of precolonial India as a succession of centralized, despotic empires that were then taken over by the next centralized empire - the British company raj/then crown raj. Rather, says Bose/Jalal, the thousands of years of Indian history before the British were a pendulum generally swinging back and forth between flexible centralization and nuanced decentralization; and company raj managed to slip in at a vulnerable, decentralized period of the Mughal Empire's rule. This was a period where much land had been surrendered by the Mughals to the Marathas, and during which the Europeans' strong navies commanded the sea-lanes of the Indian ocean. And it happened with the near-sighted collusion from wealthy regional merchant classes of India who expected monetary windfalls from working with the East India Company. Greed, as usual, reaps the whirlwind: these same groups were mostly stiffed of their promised wealth, though these privileged groups obviously got out better than the peasant classes.
"Reading backwards from the twentieth-century experience of European totalitarianism, pre-modern Asian states were seen to be all-powerful revenue extracting machines presiding over passive and pulverized societies lacking not only in dynamism but also processes of relatively autonomous social group formation...Although obviously bereft of modern democratic ideals, these empires and their regional successor states had well-developed political concepts of both individual and communitarian rights as well as political theories of good governance. The emperor merely laid claim to the highest manifestation of sovereignty, leaving the balance to be negotiated with regional sultans and local rajas, merchant institutions, as well as cities and villages. The amount of power actually vested in the different levels of sovereignty was subject to historical shifts with downward flows and seepages in periods of decentralization and fragmentation. What was non-existent, even in the heyday of pre-colonial empires, was any notion of absolute sovereignty and its concomitant demand of singular allegiance...The idea of unitary, indivisible sovereignty was a foreign import into Asia and Africa from post-enlightenment Europe. But there was an embargo on the export of rights of citizens of sovereign states to Europe’s colonies."
The company and then the crown drained India of her natural resources & riches, used India's people as a forced consumer base for its own inferior exports, and controlled the prices of India's exports for British consumers to purchase cheaply. The first recorded famine in India occurred under colonial rule, followed by many more - notably one during WW2 where almost 4 MILLION Bengalis died so the crown could feed its soldiers and Indian manufacturing city centers. Bose correctly calls this a rarely-discussed holocaust of that war. Indeed, it doesn't quite fit the narrative of the "just war" fought by the West to free those suffering under bondage in Germany and occupied German territories.
In a series of moves that can only euphemistically be described as DEVASTATINGLY AMORAL, the British also undertook a program of social engineering during the "high noon" of colonialism, ensuring that they would always be playing local religious, caste, and ethnic differences against each other. e.g., in their standing colonial armies, they would never have Sikhs putting down Sikh uprisings - they would place their chess pieces on the map in such a way that made it difficult to unify against the raj, especially placing minorities in administrative and civil positions over majorities ("Minorities came to be seen as only pawns in the end game of colonial empire").
Ultimately, the dire conditions Britain subjected India to during WW1 and WW2 while expecting India to line the Empire's armies with so much brownskinned cannon fodder lead to a series of concessions to nationalistic independence movements, including but not limited to Gandhi's populist satyagrahis. However, after India finally wrested independence from Britain, anti-colonial nationalists were understandably very afraid of losing parts of India in the frantic process of liberty; and so, left with no other state apparatus of their own to choose from, the National Congress fully inherited the raj's own nonsensical centralized administration. ("South Asians learnt the modern concept of unitary, indivisible sovereignty from their British colonial masters. In 1947 by failing to share sovereignty they ended up dividing the land.")
More bungling by Britain's Lord Mountabatten (may he be devoured by jackals in whatever afterlife exists) lead to the partition that broke Pakistan away from India, an outcome wanted by absolutely nobody in those two regions, and done on the worst possible terms, in a huge idiot rush. Pakistan, meanwhile, unlike the National Congress, inherited no state apparatus at all, and had to hurriedly invent one in the face of confusion, violence, Hindutva-motivated aggression from India, and so on. Ultimately they turned to authoritarian and martial rule almost out of necessity, and, as Bose/Jalal point out to the embarrassment of India, with about as much economic and social success as India has enjoyed besides the latter being a "democracy" (a formal if not substantive one). I read the 2nd edition of this textbook, so the narrative of events ends in 2003. Things are looking a bit better all around for Pakistan and India at the moment.
"So the creation of Pakistan, far from being the logical culmination of the theory that there were two nations in India, Hindu and Muslim, was in fact its most decisive political abortion. It was only in an all-India context that the concept of the two nations could have survived the creation of a separate Muslim homeland. Congress’s interpretation of partition cast Pakistan in the role of a ‘seceding’ state with the added implication that, if it failed to survive, the Muslim areas would have to return to the ‘Union of India’severally, not help to recreate it on the basis of two sovereign states...The dismemberment of the union of India on 14–15 August 1947 was accompanied by the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Hindus,Muslims and Sikhs as millions stumbled fearfully across the ‘shadow lines’separating two post-colonial nation-states. Lord Mountbatten, who never missed an opportunity for self-congratulation, patted himself on the back for having carried out one of ‘the greatest administrative operations in history’. As New Delhi took on a festive air before being plunged into acommunal carnage, Mahatma Gandhi – the ‘father’ of the Indian nation –mourned quietly by himself in Calcutta. And, of course, only a British judge could tell for certain where exactly the partitioners’ axe was to fall. Radcliffe’s award of the precise territorial extents of the two dominions was not made known until at least two days after India and Pakistan had come into being."
Bose/Jalal wish to challenge the idea of pre-colonial India reflecting the harsh mutual religious and ethnic conflicts/violence that it does now. Those ongoing conflicts, they say, are rather a direct product of colonialism and Britian's miserly, reluctant, racist, condescending, and overall moronic approach to "granting" India's independence, and thoroughly discontinuous with India's long history of cooperation (if occasionally strained) between all sorts of tribal identities.
March 12, 2014
Very well-done, insightful examination of South Asian history, with a focus on the 1800s and 1900s. I particularly liked how the authors examined parallels and similarities between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh after Partition, instead of treating them as entirely separate. It also had a very good take on how communal identities have become so important in politics. Unfortunately it only goes up to 1997. It's not a great introduction for someone unfamiliar with the topic, but it is a wonderful exploration for someone who already knows the basics.
July 24, 2015
A recommended read for the beginners in the South-Asian history with an interest in Pak-India socio-cultural and political dynamics, as the title might suggest. Although the pre-Mughal era is only briefly covered however the context given jusfy the arguments without much reliance on elaborate explanations.
Read
October 4, 2015A very concise (less than 200 pages of narrative) history of South Asia from around 1600 CE onward. A very accessible and complete explanation of British colonialism in South Asia with a well-rounded perspective of the subsequent nationalist movements.
May 27, 2020
Learning about South Asia political culture with history point of view was my favorite subject in college.
August 18, 2020
If you'll excuse me, I'll be grieving for all the things South Asia could have been had it not been for the British.
March 25, 2025
Read this for a History of Modern India class! A little dense, but overall engaging. I particularly enjoyed the conversations about historiography, and thought it provided many compelling arguments.
November 19, 2023
My wife found this book for me while we were browsing a Half Price Books store in Dallas. She knew it would be of interest to me ahead of our trip to Kolkata, the first time we would be travelling to India together. I came into the book with zero knowledge of the subcontinent prior to Mughal times. And even after, India is not a place that I've read deeply about. I have read four or five books on Pakistan, and also Robert Kaplan's very enjoyable panoptic of the Indian Ocean rim, Monsoon.
Because I was headed to, or in, the east of India when I read this book, I read with a particular eye on all things related to Bengal. I was fascinated by what I learned. Bengal writ large--both the Indian state of West Bengal and the country of Bangladesh--were never divided before 1905, when the crown raj split the east from the west for what they declared was purposes of administrative efficiency. The real story reasons were likely political in nature. Dividing an important an influential province like Bengal would make it easier to play communal interests off of one another. In 1905, of course, Calcutta was still the seat of British power in South Asia.
That first division only lasted until 1911. The Bengalis themselves didn't want to be divided, and no small part of the nationalist movement for Indian independence was born of that decision. The sad irony, of course, is that when independence did come, Bengal (and the Punjab) were both divided by Indian politicians in the name of political expediency. The politics behind the partition are fascinating and Bose and Jalal do a good job explaining it all.
I read some criticism that this book is mistitled, that it is really a history of India, not South Asia. That seems fair to me. Nepal and Sri Lanka are barely mentioned, if at all. Pakistan and Bangladesh necessarily received less treatment because they only enter the historical picture in the last few chapters of a book that sets about to account for the entire sweep of history on the Indian subcontinent. Would I have liked to learn more about Manipur or Sikkim, sure, but I feel perfectly satisfied with what this book has to offer.
I will note one strange thing about the book: it's ending. I believe it was originally published in the 90s, even though the second edition that I read came out in 2004. Nonetheless, it seems to me as 90s as you can get with an opinion like this: "An obsession with territoriality is not just an anachronism in today's globalized world, it's completely out of sync with the best traditions of the subcontinent's own history and political thought." The authors go on to describe their books as "a deliberate act of transgression across...arbitrary lines."
As someone who came of age politically in the 90s, I'm a fervent proponent of globalization and appreciate an exercise of intellectual transgression on static forms as much as the next educated reader does. But for those who haven't read the book through, particular the latter chapters, do keep in mind the zeitgeist that animated this book. It's worth thinking critically about, and considering how our own world has evolved (devolved?) from that optimistic, globalist moment of the 90s. (c) Jeffrey L. Otto, November 19, 2023
Because I was headed to, or in, the east of India when I read this book, I read with a particular eye on all things related to Bengal. I was fascinated by what I learned. Bengal writ large--both the Indian state of West Bengal and the country of Bangladesh--were never divided before 1905, when the crown raj split the east from the west for what they declared was purposes of administrative efficiency. The real story reasons were likely political in nature. Dividing an important an influential province like Bengal would make it easier to play communal interests off of one another. In 1905, of course, Calcutta was still the seat of British power in South Asia.
That first division only lasted until 1911. The Bengalis themselves didn't want to be divided, and no small part of the nationalist movement for Indian independence was born of that decision. The sad irony, of course, is that when independence did come, Bengal (and the Punjab) were both divided by Indian politicians in the name of political expediency. The politics behind the partition are fascinating and Bose and Jalal do a good job explaining it all.
I read some criticism that this book is mistitled, that it is really a history of India, not South Asia. That seems fair to me. Nepal and Sri Lanka are barely mentioned, if at all. Pakistan and Bangladesh necessarily received less treatment because they only enter the historical picture in the last few chapters of a book that sets about to account for the entire sweep of history on the Indian subcontinent. Would I have liked to learn more about Manipur or Sikkim, sure, but I feel perfectly satisfied with what this book has to offer.
I will note one strange thing about the book: it's ending. I believe it was originally published in the 90s, even though the second edition that I read came out in 2004. Nonetheless, it seems to me as 90s as you can get with an opinion like this: "An obsession with territoriality is not just an anachronism in today's globalized world, it's completely out of sync with the best traditions of the subcontinent's own history and political thought." The authors go on to describe their books as "a deliberate act of transgression across...arbitrary lines."
As someone who came of age politically in the 90s, I'm a fervent proponent of globalization and appreciate an exercise of intellectual transgression on static forms as much as the next educated reader does. But for those who haven't read the book through, particular the latter chapters, do keep in mind the zeitgeist that animated this book. It's worth thinking critically about, and considering how our own world has evolved (devolved?) from that optimistic, globalist moment of the 90s. (c) Jeffrey L. Otto, November 19, 2023
January 2, 2022
I had high expectations and this still met them...kind of. As a South Asian myself, I'm always fascinated (and annoyed) by how it tends to be lauded as an orientalist stereotype; with its mystery, mythology, romance and spirituality, but also as savage irrational and inhumane. So we have to credit Bose and Jalal for trying to break those stereotypes and provide a concise (and unbiased) history of the regions from a political, cultural and economical lens. These two call out "Colonial officials-turned- historians" in this book and it's admirable.
There was a lot here that I already knew and there was also a lot that I learned for the first time. I loved that Bose and Jalal included poetry from folks like Ghalib and Faiz to corroborate the public sentiment at that time.
Some of the sections that I highlighted on my copy of the book:
There was a lot here that I already knew and there was also a lot that I learned for the first time. I loved that Bose and Jalal included poetry from folks like Ghalib and Faiz to corroborate the public sentiment at that time.
Some of the sections that I highlighted on my copy of the book:
August 2, 2022
Extremely helpful book. Nice coverage of modern times, especially in the years leading up to independence. Quite nuanced look that doesn't gloss over the ugly details. Great chronological narrative. As others have mentioned, this book is only about India and Pakistan, but great in this regard.
December 30, 2024
There was no particular style to this telling of history. Read pretty basic and reminded me of my politics of South and South East Asia class at Carleton in 2002 reading material. Heck it could have easily been part of the syllabus. Decent.
May 24, 2023
Good content but a veritable snoozefest
Read
December 3, 2023can't believe i did this to myself for essays in this course
December 4, 2023
had really interesting perspectives on different issues, but tried to remain objective.
September 6, 2012
How much do you really know about Asian history? If you are like a lot people, that answer might be little to none. A great resource for you to have is Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy.
Within this academic book, you will discover much about the history of the different areas of Southern Asia. This book does not just take one area or one aspect. It tries to give an all encompassing view of the history where anyone could come from any background to read and understand more about the history of what we see as an exotic area.
The book is divided into a multitude of chapters which are needed to cover such an expansive topic. Each chapter is then broken down into smaller sections making it easier to read, absorb the information, and for research use.
This is an academic book. It is not written in a style to enjoy jut in one afternoon. You need to really want to learn this material to read it.
I did love the fact that the book contained visual images for the visual learner I am. There are pictures and maps to help understand the text better. The best part of the book, in my opinion is the glossary that is at the end of the text. Many of the names of people and places is hard to pronounce if one is not familiar withe the language much less understanding many of the words associated with the culture. This glossary is a great addition I used quite a bit. There is also a time line of events to help get your mind wrapped around the entire history. In addition there is an extensive bibliography for more research and notes that academically come one handy.
A good you need to have in your library if you are interested in Asian history.
Note: This book was part of a college course the author was in.
Within this academic book, you will discover much about the history of the different areas of Southern Asia. This book does not just take one area or one aspect. It tries to give an all encompassing view of the history where anyone could come from any background to read and understand more about the history of what we see as an exotic area.
The book is divided into a multitude of chapters which are needed to cover such an expansive topic. Each chapter is then broken down into smaller sections making it easier to read, absorb the information, and for research use.
This is an academic book. It is not written in a style to enjoy jut in one afternoon. You need to really want to learn this material to read it.
I did love the fact that the book contained visual images for the visual learner I am. There are pictures and maps to help understand the text better. The best part of the book, in my opinion is the glossary that is at the end of the text. Many of the names of people and places is hard to pronounce if one is not familiar withe the language much less understanding many of the words associated with the culture. This glossary is a great addition I used quite a bit. There is also a time line of events to help get your mind wrapped around the entire history. In addition there is an extensive bibliography for more research and notes that academically come one handy.
A good you need to have in your library if you are interested in Asian history.
Note: This book was part of a college course the author was in.
September 24, 2014
The book goes on till 2002, lot of things has happened since then, from the discovery of whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan to the recent Love Jehad campaign in India.
It may serves as a good revision and learning, filled with the debates in South Asian (by which they mean Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi, in that order) history and the broader, thematic contours, than the specifics but being academic in nature, it's not a great introduction for someone unfamiliar with the topic, but it is a wonderful exploration for someone who already knows the basics
It was undoubtedly beyond the scope to cover Sril-lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and Maldives. But I particularly liked how the authors try to examine social, economic and political differences and similarities between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh after Partition. It also had a very good take on how communitarian and communal identities have become so important in politics.
Considering the vast area the authors tried to cover in limited pages, books is armed with powerful facts and it would be hard to do unjustifiable critic and pick up the hold for a new scholar like me. But I noticed it focus is mostly on politics, very little on culture or economics. And also the economic part was not easy to understand. But it is worth reading at least once for anyone interested in understanding the genealogy of the problems that still haunts in South Asian region.
It may serves as a good revision and learning, filled with the debates in South Asian (by which they mean Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi, in that order) history and the broader, thematic contours, than the specifics but being academic in nature, it's not a great introduction for someone unfamiliar with the topic, but it is a wonderful exploration for someone who already knows the basics
It was undoubtedly beyond the scope to cover Sril-lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and Maldives. But I particularly liked how the authors try to examine social, economic and political differences and similarities between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh after Partition. It also had a very good take on how communitarian and communal identities have become so important in politics.
Considering the vast area the authors tried to cover in limited pages, books is armed with powerful facts and it would be hard to do unjustifiable critic and pick up the hold for a new scholar like me. But I noticed it focus is mostly on politics, very little on culture or economics. And also the economic part was not easy to understand. But it is worth reading at least once for anyone interested in understanding the genealogy of the problems that still haunts in South Asian region.
October 6, 2007
Perhaps due to its ambitious scope and focus on the modern narrative, the early sections at times read like a textbook, and despite what its title may suggest, most of the discussion of modern history put politics before culture or economics. The book's success lies in its balancing a critical approach to South Asia's colonial masters with an equally honest appraisal of the failings and shortcomings of pro-independence and post-independence leaders. Even Ghandi does't escape the authors' critical eyes: he is presented as one, often overly idealistic, voice among the many clamoring for freedom, romanticized in retrospect because his message of peace redeemed the ruthless and bloody road to freedom.
September 13, 2012
This short volume provides a synthesis of modern South Asian political (and to a lesser extent social) history and a light survey of the historiography/debates. As such, it's better suited for those who either already are familiar with the subject or are reading it while taking a class -- the book is a gloss, albeit a formidable one. For others, it serves as a decent refresher, but more of the debates in South Asian (by which they mean Indian-Pakistani-Bangladeshi, in that order) history and the broader, thematic contours, than the specifics. The book's strongest section is on Jinnah, the Muslim League, and the creation of Pakistan, the focus of Jalal's earlier work, The Sole Spokesman.
April 24, 2011
This is an impressive overview of South Asian history, going over key debates and events in the last three centuries with some clarity. Be it cultural, economic, social or political many angles are covered here and an extensive bibliography is supplied for further invesitgation, but for a starting reader on the history of the times you will probably find no better book.
October 27, 2008
Histories of South Asia are written by people who either 1) think that all of South Asia's problems today were caused by the British playing Hindus off the Muslims or 2) think that that the BRITISH WERE TOTAL BASTARDS!!!. This book was written by the former.
May 13, 2011
The books focus is almost entirely on politics, very little on culture or economics. It is okay, a bit dry, though I suppose that is to be expected when the authors are trying to cover so much ground. Not worth crying over if you miss reading this one.
November 18, 2014
Learning a lot about India but pretty brief in details
June 9, 2021
Incredibly good and comprehensive primer on modern South Asia
July 7, 2022
4.5. strong history, occasionally presumes some knowledge, esp during partition, could use footnotes
June 15, 2012
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER EXAM
April 8, 2017
An analytical, distinctive and interpretive work at modern south Asia, it goes beyond the categories of nation states and breaches the boundary of 1947 in examining and synthesizing the history and polity of south Asia, incorporating latest research and thoughts in historiography.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews