What do you think?
Rate this book
The Indian Conservative : A History of Indian Right-Wing Thought
Right-wing thought has a long and ancient tradition in India. In this riveting book, jaithirth Rao traces its history, explores its philosophical underpinnings and different manifestations, and defines it as conservatism – a philosophy that rejects radical, reactionary and utopian positions and argues for change that evolves gradually and peacefully, preserves features of the past that are constructive and worth cherishing, and believes in a minimalist state that protects individual liberties even as it promotes policies that work on the ground. Hindu nationalism and the Bharatiya Janata Party are among the many offshoots of this tradition. Focusing on five areas – The economy, politics, culture, society and aesthetics – Rao examines the rich contribution that Indian conservatism could make in each of these fields in contemporary India. Lively, eloquent and provocative, this is a book that will stimulate much thought, discussion and debate as it challenges the dogmas of the left and the extreme right and raises the key issues that engage India today.
280 pages, Hardcover
First published October 24, 2019
33 people are currently reading
441 people want to read
About the author
Jaithirth Rao
6 books8 followersJaithirth Rao, popularly known as Jerry Rao, is an Indian businessman and entrepreneur. He is the founder and former CEO of the software company MphasiS. He is the founder of Value and Budget Housing Corporation, an affordable housing venture which he founded in 2008.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
April 14, 2021
It is a desperate attempt to fit Indian politics into American mould and formulate a conservative position from thin air. The result is typical conference-circuit trash that is to be read and discarded. For the writer, a business leader who made money through modern-day coolie trade, Outsourcing, was unsure whether he is preparing a powerpoint presentation or writing a political book, it reads like a collection of slides, with names and one-liners thrown in a jumble without order. And, indeed, the arguments are facile too: The conservative here embraces market solutions and yet roots himself (it must be a man) for family and for the local, the very things that markets must level. For this imaginary conservative, all change must be gradual, despite the very radical change in thinking that the author wants to bring about. Altogether, a most forgettable book!
July 11, 2020
3.5/5 Narendra Modi started his campaign for 2014 elections with an hour long speech in SRCC college, and it got many of us thinking. Here, finally, was a man unchained by the past and yet rooted in Bharat. He was not a classical liberal, and he was not a leftist (the term “left-liberal” is BS). So, what was he ? What is right-wing/conservative politics ?
Unfortunately, the answer has taken a lot of reading and thought. The conservative approach is empirical and the giants are too busy achieving to write :) Look at Sardar Patel. Or Margaret Thatcher. Also, on a serious note, the right-wing does lack articulation if not intellect.
Reading this book has helped understand a lot. And while this book is frustratingly short it does clear the core issues to Indians.
Unfortunately, the answer has taken a lot of reading and thought. The conservative approach is empirical and the giants are too busy achieving to write :) Look at Sardar Patel. Or Margaret Thatcher. Also, on a serious note, the right-wing does lack articulation if not intellect.
Reading this book has helped understand a lot. And while this book is frustratingly short it does clear the core issues to Indians.
September 29, 2020
A good book. Worth reading. I liked the fact that the author has tried to present a balanced view and maintained a tone of neutrality throughout. The sources he has referred to range from ancient Indian texts across languages to some of the classics in English literature. A good introduction to Indian conservatism.
December 28, 2019
We need more 'conservative' voices in the public discourse on country and the direction it is heading in. It's true that this space been dominated in India by the Left, and this book attempts to provide a counterpoint. However, it is largely anecdotal and lacks the rigour you expect from a book like this which the author himself admits in the end.
December 25, 2019
With the dominance of a Left-thought process, it is imperative that the Conservatives find their space. This is a good attempt towards building this.
March 29, 2020
'The Indian Conservative : A History of Indian Right Wing Thought' by Jiathirth Rao is an attempt to create respectability for the Indian conservatism by disassociating it from the virulent forms of right wing politics at play in the form of majoritarian nationalism.
The author, with a palpable apologetic tone, pleads a case for moderate Hindu nationalism, and argues that conservatism is not just an intuitive response of the unlearned or the unthinking, but is based on rationality and empirical wisdom.
What strikes a reader is the somewhat muddled use of definitions by the author for 'conservative', which is broad and vague enough to bring under its ambit any reasonable person.
According to the author, conservatism is a school of philosophy which affirms the view that human beings need structure and discipline, and places value in institutions and inherited traditions. Rather than idealistic utopias, the conservatives are driven by what works on ground and what is practical. They advocate horizontal social cohesion within individuals ( "band of brothers") within limited geographies. References are made to Edmund Burke, Roger Scruton for these propositions. Referring to Shanti Parva of Mahabharata and Thiruvalluvar, the author states that conservative thought is rooted in Indian tradition as well.
At the same time, the author clarifies that they are not averse to change.
"We are committed to change...we however, do not believe in jettisoning features of the past that are worth preserving or that we feel are worth cherishing".
"To conserve, we have to change", he says elsewhere.
So what according to the author is the difference between a 'conservative' and 'liberal'? A conservative advocates gradual change, whereas liberal advocates revolutionary changes. Thus, according to the author, the pace at which the change is advocated determines the difference between a 'conservative' and a 'liberal'.
Applying this yardstick, the author appropriates many individuals, who intuitively comes across as radical reformers, as conservatives. One would be surprised to read the list of individuals classified as 'conservatives' by the author. It includes Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Jyotiba Phule, Dr Ambedkar, Gandhi and even Periyar Ramaswamy Naiker (!). The justification is that they supported the existence of British Raj politically. This political strategy adopted by these individuals to push forward their reforms makes them 'conservatives' in the eyes of the author.
What is most astounding is the claim made by the author that the Indian Constitution is a conservative document. This is based on the argument that Indian Constitution did not fundamentally alter the governance structure built by the British. In this superficial understanding of the constitution, the author omits to see the force of the chapter of fundamental rights, which seeks to transform social hierarchies and power structures by placing individual as the basic unit. This remarkable feature of Constitution is completely ignored by the author.
In fact, the biggest failure of the book is that it does not make any attempt to discuss how the dynamics should be between the individual and the society as per the Indian conservative tradition. The omission of the author to take note of the rights-based approach of the Indian Constitution is symptomatic of this myopic view present throughout in the book. The emphasis is on structures and institutions, and individuals are seen as abstract, homogeneous entities who, the author presumes, will act uniformly on the basis of inherited traditions and collective wisdom.
The author also does not acknowledge the fact that the impetus for change in society comes from those individuals, who have the ability to spot the inequities in the system and have the courage to call them out. And where does such ability and courage emanate from? From unhindered thinking and questioning spirit. These enable a person to take a critical view of traditions and institutions. So, the 'change' is not something which just organically emerges out of the society. It is brought upon by the acts and thoughts of free-thinking individuals. But even they will be 'conservatives' as per the broad sweep of the author's definition.
To denounce liberalism, the author cites the examples of the effects of revolutionary movements. He conflates communism with liberalism, and attacks Stalin and Mao, as if that amounts to a criticism of liberalism. I don't think communists regard themselves as liberals. One can find the author misdirecting himself in these portions of the book.
The author also advocates 'respect' for majority culture; however, carefully distances from majoritarian position.
"Respecting the majority culture does not mean accepting the majority position", he says.
He also denounces the othering of minority cultures, and disapproves bigotry. He pleads for an inclusive society, with the majority culture leading the way.
All this looks fine. But the sincerity of these statements are under doubt. Because, the author discusses Savarkar, Hegdewar, Golwolkar etc, without making even a single mention about some of their patently communal and divisive writings and thoughts. The author sounds somewhat regretful about Babri demolition, but dismisses it as an incident of 'unfortunate mob violence'.
These portions cast a shadow on the sincerity of the author's intentions. Somewhere in the middle, the book completely loses track, when it starts showering encomiums on the governance of Narendra Modi.
One could also not help noticing a derisive tone in the author, when he termed the movements of the oppressed and marginalized as "playing victim-hood" and "grievance mongering".
At another instance, the author says that the elites should be more compassionate and considerate towards the underprivileged. Then he gives two examples from literature. One from "The Tale of Two cities", where the poor agitated to kill a callous aristocrat. Another, "The White Tiger" , which showed "simmering discontent degenerating into random, uncontrolled acts of violence".
"So, if only for this consequentialist reason, to prevent outbursts of violence, we need to change our social attitudes and behaviour".
To make an appeal for humane behaviour towards poor and marginalized for fear of violent uprising - how does that sound?
The book comes across as shallow in terms of scholarship. A deeper reading on "Conservatism" is available in Wikipedia.
The prose of the work is quite remarkable, though the thoughts conveyed by it does not match up to its quality.
The author, with a palpable apologetic tone, pleads a case for moderate Hindu nationalism, and argues that conservatism is not just an intuitive response of the unlearned or the unthinking, but is based on rationality and empirical wisdom.
What strikes a reader is the somewhat muddled use of definitions by the author for 'conservative', which is broad and vague enough to bring under its ambit any reasonable person.
According to the author, conservatism is a school of philosophy which affirms the view that human beings need structure and discipline, and places value in institutions and inherited traditions. Rather than idealistic utopias, the conservatives are driven by what works on ground and what is practical. They advocate horizontal social cohesion within individuals ( "band of brothers") within limited geographies. References are made to Edmund Burke, Roger Scruton for these propositions. Referring to Shanti Parva of Mahabharata and Thiruvalluvar, the author states that conservative thought is rooted in Indian tradition as well.
At the same time, the author clarifies that they are not averse to change.
"We are committed to change...we however, do not believe in jettisoning features of the past that are worth preserving or that we feel are worth cherishing".
"To conserve, we have to change", he says elsewhere.
So what according to the author is the difference between a 'conservative' and 'liberal'? A conservative advocates gradual change, whereas liberal advocates revolutionary changes. Thus, according to the author, the pace at which the change is advocated determines the difference between a 'conservative' and a 'liberal'.
Applying this yardstick, the author appropriates many individuals, who intuitively comes across as radical reformers, as conservatives. One would be surprised to read the list of individuals classified as 'conservatives' by the author. It includes Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Jyotiba Phule, Dr Ambedkar, Gandhi and even Periyar Ramaswamy Naiker (!). The justification is that they supported the existence of British Raj politically. This political strategy adopted by these individuals to push forward their reforms makes them 'conservatives' in the eyes of the author.
What is most astounding is the claim made by the author that the Indian Constitution is a conservative document. This is based on the argument that Indian Constitution did not fundamentally alter the governance structure built by the British. In this superficial understanding of the constitution, the author omits to see the force of the chapter of fundamental rights, which seeks to transform social hierarchies and power structures by placing individual as the basic unit. This remarkable feature of Constitution is completely ignored by the author.
In fact, the biggest failure of the book is that it does not make any attempt to discuss how the dynamics should be between the individual and the society as per the Indian conservative tradition. The omission of the author to take note of the rights-based approach of the Indian Constitution is symptomatic of this myopic view present throughout in the book. The emphasis is on structures and institutions, and individuals are seen as abstract, homogeneous entities who, the author presumes, will act uniformly on the basis of inherited traditions and collective wisdom.
The author also does not acknowledge the fact that the impetus for change in society comes from those individuals, who have the ability to spot the inequities in the system and have the courage to call them out. And where does such ability and courage emanate from? From unhindered thinking and questioning spirit. These enable a person to take a critical view of traditions and institutions. So, the 'change' is not something which just organically emerges out of the society. It is brought upon by the acts and thoughts of free-thinking individuals. But even they will be 'conservatives' as per the broad sweep of the author's definition.
To denounce liberalism, the author cites the examples of the effects of revolutionary movements. He conflates communism with liberalism, and attacks Stalin and Mao, as if that amounts to a criticism of liberalism. I don't think communists regard themselves as liberals. One can find the author misdirecting himself in these portions of the book.
The author also advocates 'respect' for majority culture; however, carefully distances from majoritarian position.
"Respecting the majority culture does not mean accepting the majority position", he says.
He also denounces the othering of minority cultures, and disapproves bigotry. He pleads for an inclusive society, with the majority culture leading the way.
All this looks fine. But the sincerity of these statements are under doubt. Because, the author discusses Savarkar, Hegdewar, Golwolkar etc, without making even a single mention about some of their patently communal and divisive writings and thoughts. The author sounds somewhat regretful about Babri demolition, but dismisses it as an incident of 'unfortunate mob violence'.
These portions cast a shadow on the sincerity of the author's intentions. Somewhere in the middle, the book completely loses track, when it starts showering encomiums on the governance of Narendra Modi.
One could also not help noticing a derisive tone in the author, when he termed the movements of the oppressed and marginalized as "playing victim-hood" and "grievance mongering".
At another instance, the author says that the elites should be more compassionate and considerate towards the underprivileged. Then he gives two examples from literature. One from "The Tale of Two cities", where the poor agitated to kill a callous aristocrat. Another, "The White Tiger" , which showed "simmering discontent degenerating into random, uncontrolled acts of violence".
"So, if only for this consequentialist reason, to prevent outbursts of violence, we need to change our social attitudes and behaviour".
To make an appeal for humane behaviour towards poor and marginalized for fear of violent uprising - how does that sound?
The book comes across as shallow in terms of scholarship. A deeper reading on "Conservatism" is available in Wikipedia.
The prose of the work is quite remarkable, though the thoughts conveyed by it does not match up to its quality.
May 3, 2020
Thank you to the Author for writing this book. There is a dearth of resources that can map the intellectual trajectory of Indian Conservatism.
In colleges, it is a fashion to look down upon anyone appreciating any conservative leader. For example if you say that India must protect its borders against illegal migrants or enforce laws to prevent religious conversions; people immediately disdain you.
The colleges are anyways flooded with marxist-postmodernists who are quick to denounce any mention of a pan Indian culture or civilization as a Brahmanical hegemony.
I always felt that there was another side of the coin. That for every Marx there is an Adam Smith. For every Paine, a Burke.
I believe that one should read both sides of the debate and then make up ones mind based on their knowledge and temperament.
Of course freedom of speech is paramount so we cannot and must not hush any one or enforce speech on anyone.
This book helped me understand Conservatism as a political, cultural, aesthetic and social doctrine.
Thank you for writing the book, sir.
In colleges, it is a fashion to look down upon anyone appreciating any conservative leader. For example if you say that India must protect its borders against illegal migrants or enforce laws to prevent religious conversions; people immediately disdain you.
The colleges are anyways flooded with marxist-postmodernists who are quick to denounce any mention of a pan Indian culture or civilization as a Brahmanical hegemony.
I always felt that there was another side of the coin. That for every Marx there is an Adam Smith. For every Paine, a Burke.
I believe that one should read both sides of the debate and then make up ones mind based on their knowledge and temperament.
Of course freedom of speech is paramount so we cannot and must not hush any one or enforce speech on anyone.
This book helped me understand Conservatism as a political, cultural, aesthetic and social doctrine.
Thank you for writing the book, sir.
April 10, 2020
This is neither a manifesto nor a magisterial study of Indian Conservatives. There is a strand of conservatism that runs throughout the history of this country which the author tries to surface but not quite successfully. The smattering of references means a cogent case is attempted but not taken to its denouement.
The author has to be commended for calling out certain spheres of marxist dominance with gusto but overall it falls short of what could have been a manifesto for Indian Conservatives.
The author has to be commended for calling out certain spheres of marxist dominance with gusto but overall it falls short of what could have been a manifesto for Indian Conservatives.
December 15, 2019
I was looking forward to a book that explains Indian conservatism. The book does a good job of explaining the conservative values in different fields: politics, aesthetics, culture etc.
I would have enjoyed the book even more, if the fault lines that exist between conservative and liberal world views were explored in greater detail.
Still a good read for someone looking to understand the conservative thought process beyond the caricature that is usually presented in the media.
I would have enjoyed the book even more, if the fault lines that exist between conservative and liberal world views were explored in greater detail.
Still a good read for someone looking to understand the conservative thought process beyond the caricature that is usually presented in the media.
December 23, 2019
Part of goal to pass the Turing ideology test for conservatism
June 30, 2020
In this very educative book, the author covers the stream of Indian conservative thought from ancient times to the modern era. He traces the tradition to the ancient texts of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata, the Thirukkural, the Apstamba Sutra of Yajurveda and others. Being an anglophile, author puts in deep insights about the Anglo-Saxon conservative tradition and bring out their striking synchronicity with our own ancient tradition. Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay are described as notable exponents of modern conservatism in India.
Author has attributed certain basic principles to the conservative way of thought and action. Which are - emphasis on individual effort and responsibility, evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach towards change wherein preserving the best from the past while abandoning the worst, a bottom-up approach of social progress which takes place in an organic, decentralized, voluntary and consensus based manner, the state / ruler should follow his 'Raja Dharma' and prevent 'Matsya Nyaya'. The concept of 'character' and 'yuga dharma' (each epoch require different response from the virtuous) are central to the conservative worldview.
In political sphere the author highlights the role of conservatives in the national struggle of which most notable ones are C Rajagopalachari and Sardar Patel. The author positions the Indian Constitution as a conservative document while 'Partition of India' as an abrupt revolutionary act.
The author laments the state-led socialist path that India took under Nehru despite repeated appeals from Swatantra stalwarts and free market economists like BR Shenoy. The author lays down a possible way forward for political conservatives in absence of force like Swatantra Party, the only conservative party India ever had.
The author draws attention to the badly managed education system at all levels as a result of the statist approach. He bemoans the hijack of Indian academia by marxists and postmodernists whom he detests thoroughly. He calls for an overhaul by making it easy for private players to participate and limiting state role to only where its needed.
It is a pioneering work in the way author has traced the conservative tradition in India right upto the current times and articulated conservative concerns of past and present.
Author has attributed certain basic principles to the conservative way of thought and action. Which are - emphasis on individual effort and responsibility, evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach towards change wherein preserving the best from the past while abandoning the worst, a bottom-up approach of social progress which takes place in an organic, decentralized, voluntary and consensus based manner, the state / ruler should follow his 'Raja Dharma' and prevent 'Matsya Nyaya'. The concept of 'character' and 'yuga dharma' (each epoch require different response from the virtuous) are central to the conservative worldview.
In political sphere the author highlights the role of conservatives in the national struggle of which most notable ones are C Rajagopalachari and Sardar Patel. The author positions the Indian Constitution as a conservative document while 'Partition of India' as an abrupt revolutionary act.
The author laments the state-led socialist path that India took under Nehru despite repeated appeals from Swatantra stalwarts and free market economists like BR Shenoy. The author lays down a possible way forward for political conservatives in absence of force like Swatantra Party, the only conservative party India ever had.
The author draws attention to the badly managed education system at all levels as a result of the statist approach. He bemoans the hijack of Indian academia by marxists and postmodernists whom he detests thoroughly. He calls for an overhaul by making it easy for private players to participate and limiting state role to only where its needed.
It is a pioneering work in the way author has traced the conservative tradition in India right upto the current times and articulated conservative concerns of past and present.
May 17, 2020
Incredibly erudite and consistently rational, Jaithirth Rao's exposition of Indian Conservatism is truly illuminating. I'd definitely recommend to anyone who, like me, is struggling to articulate a political ideology in an increasingly confused world. Even if you are a hardcore liberal, this book definitely has something for you, if only to recognise Conservatism as the legitimate ideology that it is.
September 14, 2020
A good book to get an overview of how the right-wing people of India thought about various things. A not so long conservative views on politics, culture, economics etc which has an effect on modern day India.
November 10, 2019
Interesting book.
It opened my eyes. We need more books in such topic.
It opened my eyes. We need more books in such topic.
December 15, 2020
Jaithirth "Jerry" Rao is one of the few avowed conservatives in India. Having read his collection of essays titled, "Notes from an Indian Conservative"(Rupa, 2010), I was already familiar with his writing. In this book, Rao sets himself a more ambitious task: that of analyzing conservative strands in the social, economic, political, cultural, and aesthetic spheres of modern India.
Conservatism is a philosophy or outlook that disdains policies based on abstract rational principles. Conservatism advocates modest improvements and learning from customs, traditions, and wisdom acquired over the years. While there is no standard conservative response to specific issues, generally speaking, conservatism would advocate free markets, small state, and individual freedom.
In India after independence the ideology of leftism or progressivism took hold. Six decades of progressivism cost India economic prosperity and social and economic vibrancy. Although leftist thinking has lost its hegemonic position in India, its influence remains.
Jerry Rao's book poses two major issues: (1) Is Hindutva or Hindu nationalism, the main ideology opposed to leftism in India, a conservative ideology? and (2)Is a conservative agenda feasible in India?
Addressing the first issue, Rao argues that moderate Hindutva is indeed a conservative tendency. I beg to disagree. Conservatism eschews utopias or large scale socio-economic programs. The project of Hindu Rashtra, which is the basis of Hindutva is for this reason essentially a fascist ideology and not a conservative ideology.
Conservatism implies holding on to tradition and culture inherited from the past. This poses two problems in India: (a) There is no one culture in India as India is a hopelessly diverse nation. This is not to deny the civilizational links that exist in India or to overlook the merits of India's many cultural traditions. But for a state to project any one culture as authentically Indian would be a recipe for disaster. (b)Secondly, Indian culture is caste-ridden and patriarchal. So typical conservative response would be quite obscurantist. In India, an acceptable conservatism would be common sense liberalism.
This book tries to cover a lot of ground too quickly. As a result, the book appears half baked and amateurish. However, I particularly enjoyed the bibliographic essay at the end of the book.
Conservatism is a philosophy or outlook that disdains policies based on abstract rational principles. Conservatism advocates modest improvements and learning from customs, traditions, and wisdom acquired over the years. While there is no standard conservative response to specific issues, generally speaking, conservatism would advocate free markets, small state, and individual freedom.
In India after independence the ideology of leftism or progressivism took hold. Six decades of progressivism cost India economic prosperity and social and economic vibrancy. Although leftist thinking has lost its hegemonic position in India, its influence remains.
Jerry Rao's book poses two major issues: (1) Is Hindutva or Hindu nationalism, the main ideology opposed to leftism in India, a conservative ideology? and (2)Is a conservative agenda feasible in India?
Addressing the first issue, Rao argues that moderate Hindutva is indeed a conservative tendency. I beg to disagree. Conservatism eschews utopias or large scale socio-economic programs. The project of Hindu Rashtra, which is the basis of Hindutva is for this reason essentially a fascist ideology and not a conservative ideology.
Conservatism implies holding on to tradition and culture inherited from the past. This poses two problems in India: (a) There is no one culture in India as India is a hopelessly diverse nation. This is not to deny the civilizational links that exist in India or to overlook the merits of India's many cultural traditions. But for a state to project any one culture as authentically Indian would be a recipe for disaster. (b)Secondly, Indian culture is caste-ridden and patriarchal. So typical conservative response would be quite obscurantist. In India, an acceptable conservatism would be common sense liberalism.
This book tries to cover a lot of ground too quickly. As a result, the book appears half baked and amateurish. However, I particularly enjoyed the bibliographic essay at the end of the book.
December 27, 2019
This book isn't about Indian conservatives or Indian conservative thought- it's about conscripting (the most unlikely) historical figures to the conservative camp through a string of convenient he-saids she-saids, where conservatism itself is ill-defined. Lacking in intellectual or logical consistency. The chapters on culture, society, and aesthetics and education read like an opinionated travel brochure with little or no connection to conservatism and hardly any liberal counter-points. Having tried to opine about everything Indian, Jerry Rao just comes across as a curmudgeonly TV debate regular.
January 16, 2020
The author doesn't define conservatism clearly. Due to the lack of conservative icons, he tries to appropriate great men from Ambedkar to Periyar E.V.R. (!!!) to the conservative camp based on tenuous arguments. He doesn't mention how he defines liberalism if people like Periyar are conservatives. As a Tamilan, want to put it on record that Thirukkural, which the author quotes often, called all living beings equal 2000 years ago, is very progressive and the author selectively misquotes certain couplets to make it look like a conservative book and puts it on par with the vedas.
September 12, 2021
The Book “The Indian Conservative” by Jaithirth Rao is an answer to the academia and intellectual circles which propagate and believe that there was no Indian Conservative in its history.
The author has written the book with a great enthusiasm with backed research and material to counter the leftist and European centric view of conservatism and present the Indian conservatism and can really become a weapon and guide book to all the intellectual people especially students of arts and humanities who believe in Indian Conservatism and are not able to counter the lies and propaganda of Marxist people in their field of work and study. Jaithirth has explained Indian conservatism in five areas i.e., Economic sphere, Political sphere, Cultural sphere, Social sphere, and Aesthetics and Education.
In each Sphere, the author has given ample examples and research-backed information on how India needs its own conservatism instead of following up European or Anglo-Saxon-based conservatism. Authors' repeated citations to our ancient texts Shanti Parva, thirukkural, Vedas, and many Indian authors reflect the tremendous research in presenting Indian conservatism.
While writing in comparison with the American and European conservatism author has missed the chance to highlight the harsh treatment given to us Indians especially Hindus in every sphere author has divided the book by these European colonizers and invaders from the desert nations and i expect that author writes on more regarding the each sphere in series of books keeping Indian conservatism as center subject in coming days with more detailed research and information.
To all those interested in indic conservatism kindly read the books mentioned in the section “Guide for further Reading” it will definitely make us ready to counter the narrative and propaganda of leftist and Anglo versions of Indology and make us competent to present our real view of Indian conservatism.
I thank the Indic Book Club for sending me a copy of the book for review and highly recommend the book to all Indology students and people interested in Indic history.
The author has written the book with a great enthusiasm with backed research and material to counter the leftist and European centric view of conservatism and present the Indian conservatism and can really become a weapon and guide book to all the intellectual people especially students of arts and humanities who believe in Indian Conservatism and are not able to counter the lies and propaganda of Marxist people in their field of work and study. Jaithirth has explained Indian conservatism in five areas i.e., Economic sphere, Political sphere, Cultural sphere, Social sphere, and Aesthetics and Education.
In each Sphere, the author has given ample examples and research-backed information on how India needs its own conservatism instead of following up European or Anglo-Saxon-based conservatism. Authors' repeated citations to our ancient texts Shanti Parva, thirukkural, Vedas, and many Indian authors reflect the tremendous research in presenting Indian conservatism.
While writing in comparison with the American and European conservatism author has missed the chance to highlight the harsh treatment given to us Indians especially Hindus in every sphere author has divided the book by these European colonizers and invaders from the desert nations and i expect that author writes on more regarding the each sphere in series of books keeping Indian conservatism as center subject in coming days with more detailed research and information.
To all those interested in indic conservatism kindly read the books mentioned in the section “Guide for further Reading” it will definitely make us ready to counter the narrative and propaganda of leftist and Anglo versions of Indology and make us competent to present our real view of Indian conservatism.
I thank the Indic Book Club for sending me a copy of the book for review and highly recommend the book to all Indology students and people interested in Indic history.
November 1, 2020
This is not history with the rigour one would expect of the subject, with meticulously researched footnotes and a good 30% of the final pages dedicated to the notes. It is an anecdotal and opinionated capture of the long tradition of Indian Conservative thought, starting from our foundational texts all the way till the modern day.
Conservative thought in India is often caricatured with rampant Islamophobia and Hindu fascism, and while they may reflect some of the more extreme realities, to draw the line there would be the equivalent of tagging all liberals as commune loving Maoists.
It is not a history, it is a historical index. An index along with brief descriptions of the myriad personalities that have built and advanced the conservative tradition in India, who belong not just to the academic intelligentsia, but religious thinkers, businessmen, artists, political workers, women's rights activists, and so many more.
It can be somewhat polemical to the statist polity, but again, opinionated.
Conservative thought in India is often caricatured with rampant Islamophobia and Hindu fascism, and while they may reflect some of the more extreme realities, to draw the line there would be the equivalent of tagging all liberals as commune loving Maoists.
It is not a history, it is a historical index. An index along with brief descriptions of the myriad personalities that have built and advanced the conservative tradition in India, who belong not just to the academic intelligentsia, but religious thinkers, businessmen, artists, political workers, women's rights activists, and so many more.
It can be somewhat polemical to the statist polity, but again, opinionated.
September 25, 2020
An important book that shows Hindu Nationalism is not all evil. Pitches a case for Burkean Conservatism having guided the moderate nationalists, i.e Gokhale , Rammohun Roy and Bankim Chattopadhyay to varying extents.
The key idea being that abrupt change by extremists, be it on the Right (Nazis), Mussolini's Italy) or Left (Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, PolPot), leaves ruptures in society that take away both the good along with the bad. Conservatives build a case for retaining the good while letting go of the bad in good time. Probably the only hope for the present schism between the Left and Right in India. Meeting each other mid way with a common understanding of facts and dialogue based compromise to heal wounds, both old and new?
The key idea being that abrupt change by extremists, be it on the Right (Nazis), Mussolini's Italy) or Left (Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, PolPot), leaves ruptures in society that take away both the good along with the bad. Conservatives build a case for retaining the good while letting go of the bad in good time. Probably the only hope for the present schism between the Left and Right in India. Meeting each other mid way with a common understanding of facts and dialogue based compromise to heal wounds, both old and new?
February 3, 2021
For the past few weeks, I've been trying to read up and understand some of the thinking behind India's Right wingers. Rao's work here is a short and crisp exposition of some of the ideas behind Indian conservatism. While I couldnt agree with most of his thinking, the book helped me understand the foundational ideas behind conservatism as a political thought. I'm now prepped for Burke, Rajaji and the others...
June 26, 2023
Convincing book. The author traces two schools of conservative thought: Raja Ram Mohan Roy's and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee's. Works brilliantly as a case for Indian conservatism. I also think it explains the other-isation of minorities in India well, even though that does not seem to have been the author's intention.
December 7, 2022
A very important contribution to the study of Indian conservatism. Fairly Comprehensive while maintaining readability for a common audience. A must read if you're interested in understanding both classical liberal and Hindu nationalist tradition in India, where they converge and diverge.
April 12, 2024
Jaithirth Rao who is widely considered a conservative intellectual has, in this engaging book, given a historical perspective of Indian conservative thought. He heavily draws from the 17th and 18th-century English political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes, and Edmund Burke and the modern conservative philosopher Roger Scruton. He also draws from the ancient Indian classics, especially the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata and Tirukkural of Tiruvalluvar. He explores the positions of Indian conservative thinking in Economics, Politics, society, culture, and Aesthetics. In the well-crafted introduction, Mr. Rao presents his conservative position that any change or improvement in human affairs must be gradual and evolutionary, and any sudden and violent change is viewed with high suspicion. An approach involving the acceptance of violence is resented on both moral and practical grounds. He goes on to state that the primary concern of the conservative is the freedom and well-being of the individuals. Freely formed, voluntary, organic associative institutions are necessary, and state-sponsored collectives are inimical to the individual’s interests/agency. The principal challenge faced by the conservatives is how to change constructively, without losing things of value in the process of change. They believe traditions and values have evolved over millennia and are intrinsically valuable. They detest an approach that discards time-tested values and traditions in the name of change and reform. While they agree to change, they don’t like to throw the baby with the bath water. In political matters, conservatives are always for gradual, constitutional change and opposed to breakneck revolutionary change. One wonders in what way this conservative position is different from a Liberal position. Broadly Liberals also subscribe to what Rao considers as conservative philosophy. This must have prompted Ram Guha to ask what according to Mr. Rao is the perceived difference between conservatism and liberalism. Mr. Rao explains that the distinction lies in the difference in thinking between the English philosopher Hobbes and the French philosopher Rousseau - Conservatives subscribe to Hobbes and Liberals to Rousseau. While conservatives’ association with Hobbes is understandable, Liberals following Rousseau appears strange. Generally, Liberals are believed to subscribe to John Locke. Throughout the book, Mr. Rao uses Liberals and Marxists interchangeably. But, Liberals are not Marxists in the same way as conservatives as Rao’s affiliation are not Sanatanis. Just as there are many shades to conservatism, liberalism also has many variations. Marx represents the end of the spectrum. Mr. Rao’s complaint that many liberals are opting to protect group identities abandoning the individual is not true and usually is not the liberal position. The shoe is on the other leg; Conservatives, at least in India, expect individuals to be an extension of the community while group loyalties circumscribe their actions. It appears Mr. Rao’s grouse is mostly with Marxists for whom he has a pathological hatred. His heroes are Patel, Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, and Madan Mohan Malavya, who in many ways were balancing the socialist group led by Nehru and Bose within the Congress. He remarks after the failure of Rajaji’s Swatantra party experiment, there is little chance for a political party in the Burke–Rammohun Roy–Gokhale–Rajagopalachari mode, which he likes, to succeed.
Even Indian conservatism according to Rao has two schools. While Raj Rammohun Roy's followers represent Burke’s gradualism, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee evolved with nationalist sentiment. In Mr. Rao's opinion, there is a respectable school of thought which held a view that British rule was not only an inescapable fact but also provided a positive injection into the stream of Indian history and to dismiss this wide range of support to the Raj as unpatriotic, and traitorous is unfair. In fact, during the pre-independence period, those who supported British rule were categorized as conservatives. That is how many of the reformers including Rammohun Roy, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Ranade, and Gopala Krishna Gokhale are regarded by Mr. Rao as Conservatives because they were advocating moderate constitutional methods, discussions, and negotiations with the British to realize their goals. Incidentally, all these leaders who were also social reformers were considered liberals by the Hindu orthodoxy/conservatives. Even the British considered them Liberals though Rao attributes this to the peculiar politics in Britain during that period. It can safely be said that the liberal-conservative differentiation is a matter of perspective and the line dividing Conservative of Mr. Rao’s persuasion and Liberal is too thin. To sum up, Mr. Rao may be considered as the one who prefers conservative means to achieve liberal goals.
Mr. Rao claims that most conservatives have a soft spot for religion, as it provides a stable bedrock for ethical commerce among individuals, and it represents some of the finest parts of our human inheritance. Liberals should not have any problem with this position if faith/ religion is a personal issue and should be left to the individual’s free will.
As you end the book it appears without sacrificing any of his core beliefs and probably with minor disagreements, a liberal should not mind being a conservative of Rao’s persuasion. However, it is doubtful whether Sanatanis would accept him as one of their own!
It is an excellent engaging read. Especially his final chapter on recommendations for further reading reveals his scholarship and erudition. His range includes English Common law to Dharma Shastras, Adam Smith to Yajur Veda (Apastamba Sutras), and Edmund Burke to Shanti Parva&Tirukkural. For anyone interested in Indian history and philosophy there are many good recommendations.
Even Indian conservatism according to Rao has two schools. While Raj Rammohun Roy's followers represent Burke’s gradualism, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee evolved with nationalist sentiment. In Mr. Rao's opinion, there is a respectable school of thought which held a view that British rule was not only an inescapable fact but also provided a positive injection into the stream of Indian history and to dismiss this wide range of support to the Raj as unpatriotic, and traitorous is unfair. In fact, during the pre-independence period, those who supported British rule were categorized as conservatives. That is how many of the reformers including Rammohun Roy, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Ranade, and Gopala Krishna Gokhale are regarded by Mr. Rao as Conservatives because they were advocating moderate constitutional methods, discussions, and negotiations with the British to realize their goals. Incidentally, all these leaders who were also social reformers were considered liberals by the Hindu orthodoxy/conservatives. Even the British considered them Liberals though Rao attributes this to the peculiar politics in Britain during that period. It can safely be said that the liberal-conservative differentiation is a matter of perspective and the line dividing Conservative of Mr. Rao’s persuasion and Liberal is too thin. To sum up, Mr. Rao may be considered as the one who prefers conservative means to achieve liberal goals.
Mr. Rao claims that most conservatives have a soft spot for religion, as it provides a stable bedrock for ethical commerce among individuals, and it represents some of the finest parts of our human inheritance. Liberals should not have any problem with this position if faith/ religion is a personal issue and should be left to the individual’s free will.
As you end the book it appears without sacrificing any of his core beliefs and probably with minor disagreements, a liberal should not mind being a conservative of Rao’s persuasion. However, it is doubtful whether Sanatanis would accept him as one of their own!
It is an excellent engaging read. Especially his final chapter on recommendations for further reading reveals his scholarship and erudition. His range includes English Common law to Dharma Shastras, Adam Smith to Yajur Veda (Apastamba Sutras), and Edmund Burke to Shanti Parva&Tirukkural. For anyone interested in Indian history and philosophy there are many good recommendations.
January 3, 2020
A very worthy premise and some very insightful portions, but let down by the near-constant and beyond a point, needless ranting and vilification of people and philosophies the author doesn't like. One of these days, I hope to read a work such as this which argues and presents its own terms and case and doesn't find it necessary to put down the liberal side or bemoan the stifling of conservative voices.
Read
April 25, 2024This book seeks to fill the gap in the Indian political conversations, which are "drowned by the shrill noises from Hindu nationalists and left secularists" (Gurucharan Das).
This work ought to be read by every conservative and liberal. I have made strong criticisms, but it must not take away from this sincere effort of Mr Jaithirth Rao (JR) to recover Indian conservatism.
An important question I have tried to probe into is whether there can be parallels drawn between Indian conservatism and the Burkean conservative tradition. Is Hindutva ideology an essential part of Indian conservatism? Can a nationalist Indian who is Christian, find a place in conservatism in India? While valuing his own culture’s traditions, customs, literature, and architecture could he also call himself a conservative, without having to find himself among the shrill voices of the Hindutva?
I seek to answer those questions around the review.
It is important to note that the Burkean tradition is religious as well at its core. There is no Burke without his Christian philosophy. Those Hindutva conservatives who want to fawn over Burke's denunciation of the radicals but mock “missionary conversions” and Carey, Wilberforce et al, sneer at this “Abrahamic religion” are fooling themselves by thinking Burke is on their side.
The caste system is a major factor in addressing the customs of India; something I think natural law would address, which JR at no point addresses, though he comes close on one occasion. He rather chooses to argue that one could go back to "earlier" traditions and correct the deviant, more "recent" ones. I disagree, I elaborate later in this analysis.
Introduction
JR states that while the extreme form of Hindu Nationalism is "problematic", the moderate form "which emphasizes Indian cultural unities, can be seen as a legitimate movement within a broader conservative umbrella". And proceeds to, through the course of this book, though not in its entirety, expound on and develop the idea of moderate Hindu nationalism,
Conservatives “attach a great deal of importance to horizontal social cohesion within limited geographies such as villages, towns or countries.” Using Shakespeare’s ‘band of brothers’ phrase to refer to those in the army of Henry V, which consisted of aristocrats and peasants, those conscripted and those who volunteered, JR attempts to use this as a tenet of conservatism. It refers to “a shared solidarity across different, distinct persons, bound by mutual loyalty.”
He gives due credit to Burke and recognises the eminence of the Anglo-American conservative tradition. Its expressions and intuitions are found also in the Tirukkurals, the myths of Mahabharata, and other such pre-modern Indian classical literature. Both these texts deal with three pursuits of humankind: artha, kama, and dharma; and the fourth that takes care of itself when the first three are addressed - moksha.
Yuga Dharma: “correct conduct changes with time. Yuga means epoch or time period. Each yuga requires different responses from the virtuous.” An intriguing concept.
Modern Indian Conservatism
He considers pre-independence figures who had conservative tendencies. Rajaramohun Roy, the great reformer and supporter of British rule and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, whom JR calls the founder of Hindu conservatism. Bankim, though not as supportive as Roy, did hold that the British rule was providential in awakening an intellectual renaissance of Hinduism.
Gopal Krishna Gokhale: pushed Congress down the slow, gradual change path of political change. Faced opposition for his moderate views of constitutional change. Mahadev Govind Ranade and Maharshi D.K. Karve worked for social change, for political change unaccompanied by social changes was a disaster.
The principles of individualism and meritocracy are favoured by conservatives; over against collective victimhood and collective entitlements.
Phule, along with R.G. Bhandarkar set up schools and institutions rather than protest and march. A conservative sentiment, at its core. RG Bhandarkar - "we are pupils" of the English people over against the radical French.
Support for the British rule, says JR, was a modest conservative position. Something right-wing Twitter mobs would do well to take notice of.
Conservatism is opposed to universalist ideology. Perhaps that’s why a leftist from the West will find himself perfectly at home with the leftists in India. But the same cannot be said of conservatives. Yet, it is a universal impulse. The love for family, traditions and customs, the hesitancy for radical revolutions, and the pre-eminence of the Transcendent in social life are universal tendencies shared by all conservatives.
"We believe that each society will have to develop institutions and processes that are directly related to the history, geography, traditions and culture of that individual unit."
A concept which I hoped JR would address was that of natural law. He almost gets close to it at this point. He states that while the above statement is true, there are certain "self-evident" truths, such as the freedom of the individual. Perhaps a great weakness of this work is the failure to address natural law or at least the Hindu concept of Ṛta.
Burke cannot be divorced from his understanding of natural law; which comes out most clearly in the trial of Warren Hastings. Likewise to speak of the Anglo-American tradition with no reference to natural law is a great deficiency of this work. More on this later.
He says the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals can be seen in the contrast between Hobbes and Rousseau. I believe he missteps here. The social contract theory of Hobbes and Locke is more akin to contractarian liberalism than the conservatism of Burke and Blackstone.
Ch 1 - The Economic Sphere
Dadabhai Naoroji and RC Dutt were leading the conservative position on economics. They held that the bad effects of the British rule was not due to their expression of free-market, but to the contrary. BR Shenoy carried forward the laissez-faire tradition, with his warnings against the statist industrial policies and the Planning Commission of Nehru falling on deaf ears. PR Brahmananda, CN Vakil, DR Gadgil and VM Dandekar were others in this tradition.
The conservatives of the Swatanatra Party were not consequentialists, but rather “moralists” who opposed policies like central planning because they were bad in principle, they were not moral. This is indeed a conservative position: to utter the m-word; as opposed to a classical liberal or libertarian take on free-markets.
Rajaji translated sections of the Tiukkural, which focuses on the three trivargas: inbam, porul and aram; referred to as kama, artha and dharma in the Mahabharata. The statist policies were immoral because it “cramps the individual initiative”, and are lacking in dharma or aram (righteousness).
JR has captured the conservative position on economics, for far too long, conservatives have been outsourcing their economics from classical liberals and libertarians, as Yoram Hazony most recently has noted.
Minoo Masani saw the danger inherent in the Indian planning and opposed it because like it did elsewhere, it would happen so in India as well: the loss of individual liberty. While it did not happen during Nehru's period, with the reign of his daughter, Masani’s fears actualized.
The likes of Raghuram Rajan and Surjit Bhalla defended the free markets on an empirical basis, and not on a moral basis. While the empirical basis is valid, capitalism based on empiricism alone is insufficient to address the problem of tyranny in statist policies. Further Deepak Lal, Kaushik Basu, Arvind Panagariya, Arvind Subramanian, Jagdish Bhagwati, Padma Desai, TN Srinivasan, and Baron Desai are also mentioned, forming a conglomerate of free-market Indian economists.
Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze cannot be simply hailed as heroes of the left, says JR. Deepak Lal and Sen are moralists, in the tradition of Rajai and Gandhi. Being unaware of their specific writings, I refrain from commenting on the veracity of this conclusion.
Ch 2 - The Political Sphere
The inevitable question comes up, if Raja Rammohun, Naoroji et al are conservatives, why are they referred to as liberals? The reason being, according to the author, that they received a more favourable welcome from the Liberals than the Tories.
The position towards the Brits was one that dominated the political discussions. JR puts forward that conservatives were not anti-Brits but had varying yet favourable views of this encounter with the West. "The Indian encounter with the Anglo-Saxon has been seen as one that resulted in a refreshing outburst of creativity, which had constructive outcomes."
Two Strands
Raja Rammohun Roy represented the Burkean branch and Bankim Chatterjee, the Hindu conservatism. Roy's Burkean conservatism is tied to his support of the British rule, his advocacy of English, and his support for the English common law tradition.
While making allusions to Burke and Burkean conservatism, he makes no explicit mention of the Christianity of Burke or the Anglo-American tradition, given that he sees no issue in imbuing a religious character to Hindu conservatism. Burke's Christian philosophy in general and natural law, in particular, is essential for understanding his conservatism. Refer to the works of Peter Stanlis and Samuel Burgess for more on this. (For eg: https://lawliberty.org/edmund-burke-n...)
Ambedkar preferred gradualism over radical change, hence the Constitution relies heavily upon the Government of India Act, 1935. JR calls it "one of the finest pieces of legislation to come out of Westminster". Hence the Constitution, according to him, is a conservative document.
He addresses criticism of Swaminathan Aiyar over calling it a conservative document as, it did with one stroke abolish discrimination on the basis of caste, gender, and religion. But he counters this by arguing that the 1950 Constitution is a result of two centuries of change and development starting with the Regulating Act of 1700. He acknowledges the bad of Manusmriti and the good that English law brought to India. The IPC was clear in no discrimination for punishments based on caste.
This is the culmination of all contributions of the Rammohun tradition: the Constitution of India.
Now to the other strand - the Bankim tradition. Hindu Mahasabha was founded in 1915 and it was quite common to be a part of both the Mahasabha and Congress.
The Hindu nationalist view of Raj was variegated; Madan Malaviya and Hans Gupta were not as ill-disposed to the Raj as were Savarkar and Moonje. While they advocated English education, they were suspicious of it. Hedgewar and Golwalker left the Hindu Mahasabha to form the RSS in 1925. RSS sought to revive and strengthen Hindu communities.
Per JR, the Hindu Mahasabha cooperated with the Muslim League in the elections in 1935; hence despite the “relatively strong” positions of Savarkar and Golwalker, the Hindu nationalist movement was not anti-Muslim. Pretty bleak argument there. Further, it is Savarkar’s “militant and radical traditions” that currently dominate the Hindutva conservatism.
Shyam Prasad Mukerjee, along with the Hindu Mahasabha opposed the invasion of India by Japan. Perhaps a point that modern Hindutva conservatives must consider, as their vitriolic hatred of the British Raj, Gandhi, Nehru et al drives them to hail Bose as a hero. JR is crystal clear: Bose was no conservative, he was “pro-fascist”. And he would have probably established a military state, like that of Mao, were he to succeed.
While acknowledging the racist views of “several Hindu nationalists”, he provides a defence that they are products of their time. I concur; political correctness has driven the progressives to dismiss many great men. But JR's argument is faulty, considering that the modern ‘decolonisers’ are regurgitating such views.
He further distinguishes between conservatism proper and revivalists. He admits that the Hindu nationalists with their arguments of decolonisation, jettisoning of English, and castigation of Macaulay are not conservative, but revivalists; who look to the distant past with no appreciation of the immediate past.
Partition
With respect to the Partition and Pakistan, JR states two views for conservatives to oppose: first the success of India and the relative failure of Pakistan must not lead one to conclude the superiority of secularism to theocracy. This argument, I would extend to the Hindu nationalists, who rejoice in the failure of the 'Islamic' state (but somehow, ironically their theocracy might work). The second view is that Pakistan should be reintegrated into India.
Post-Independence Conservatism
The Rammohun tradition was more popular for the first few years of independence; Rajendra Prasad, Rajaji, Sardar Patel et al. As this patriotic bunch faded into oblivion; with Nehru at the helm, statists policies arose, aided by his compatriots, who were socialists and communists. Rajaji, Morarji Desai, GB Pant, BC Roy, BR Shenoy, Minoo Masani tried their best to save the economy. It appears that the battle was fought on economic lines post-independence, hence a coalition between conservatives like Rajaji and classical liberals such as Masani and Shenoy.
The conservatives and classical liberals left the Congress to form the Swatantra party. This coalition met an early demise. Perhaps a lesson is that the free-markets is not all (a point which Yoram Hazony has been addressing lately).
Now to the Bankim tradition. With Gandhi’s assassination, Godse became the face of Hindu nationalism. This hurt the Hindutva cause and set them back a few decades.
Hindu nationalism pretty much was under the radar up until the tyrannical Emergency period of Indira Gandhi. RSS was seen as one of the few opponents of this dictatorship-style “democracy”. Jana Sangh, formed by Mukerjee after he left the Hindu Mahasabha in the 1950s, entered the Janata Party in 1977, and with the break-up of the Janata Party, it became the BJP. Initially putting forward a Gandhian socialism, the BJP eventually, with the Shah Bano debacle and perhaps more so the Ayodhya dispute, awakened Hindu nationalism and Hindu pride.
The BJP utilised the Ayodhya dispute, to rally a call for a revival of the Hindu consciousness. The invaders destroyed the temple of their precious Rama and built a mosque. The best the Congress could give was a small shrine in a section of the mosque? Thus, Hindu nationalism was recast.
After a brief excurses fawning over Modi and bemoaning the leftist academia, JR moves to the religious angle. He acknowledges that the BJP faces a challenge in handling the fallouts over religion. I have no hesitation in saying that the crimes associated with the particular issue of meat alone ought to disqualify the popular brand of Hindu nationalism present in the current ethos of having any sort of conservative attitude. But he is more optimistic.
Ch 3 - Cultural Sphere
The most important cultural issue is whether there was, prior to the British, a unified cultural identity. Myths are important for us as humans. They inculcate virtue, they speak to our hearts. Indians, across religious boundaries, must treasure the Ramayana and Mahabharata. It’s preposterous to assume that they are remnants of a bygone casteist era, and must be disowned. JR uses myths of Rama, Sita, Lakshmana, and Arjuna to establish the cultural idea of Bharatvarsha.
JR wants to place the blame of the mistreatment of tribals at the feet of the British and not the upper-caste Sansktrised Hindus. That’s an odd conclusion, given JR's acknowledgement of the Britisher’s liberating efforts for the downtrodden.
The cultural unity is in the idea of the holy motherland. He cites the pilgrimage of various religions across the country to try and establish this point. The mother figure is central to Indian culture.
While I had no issues with such a characterization, the extending argument made by JR with the aid of Ashis Nandy, I have to take a strong exception. Drawing from the mother figure being central, he concludes that there is feminine in each of us. That the West ought “to engage with the feminine in us and in themselves and head towards an androgynous denouement.“
He puts forward that this approach to “androgynous denouement” may be the “most creative” contribution that Indians can provide constructively to mankind. If anything it would contribute to the problem that our culture is facing with regard to the rise of expressive individualism and the transgender craze that has gripped this generation.
“Androgynous denouement” sounds eerily similar to the whole woke leftist agenda of ‘deconstructing’ gender. Rather, to concede that man by himself is not complete and the woman by herself is not complete, but the two are polar complementary; made one in the one-flesh union of marriage gives due respect to sexual design. Respecting the complementarity of men to women bestows significance and meaning to manhood and womanhood.
Continued in the comments section
This work ought to be read by every conservative and liberal. I have made strong criticisms, but it must not take away from this sincere effort of Mr Jaithirth Rao (JR) to recover Indian conservatism.
An important question I have tried to probe into is whether there can be parallels drawn between Indian conservatism and the Burkean conservative tradition. Is Hindutva ideology an essential part of Indian conservatism? Can a nationalist Indian who is Christian, find a place in conservatism in India? While valuing his own culture’s traditions, customs, literature, and architecture could he also call himself a conservative, without having to find himself among the shrill voices of the Hindutva?
I seek to answer those questions around the review.
It is important to note that the Burkean tradition is religious as well at its core. There is no Burke without his Christian philosophy. Those Hindutva conservatives who want to fawn over Burke's denunciation of the radicals but mock “missionary conversions” and Carey, Wilberforce et al, sneer at this “Abrahamic religion” are fooling themselves by thinking Burke is on their side.
The caste system is a major factor in addressing the customs of India; something I think natural law would address, which JR at no point addresses, though he comes close on one occasion. He rather chooses to argue that one could go back to "earlier" traditions and correct the deviant, more "recent" ones. I disagree, I elaborate later in this analysis.
Introduction
JR states that while the extreme form of Hindu Nationalism is "problematic", the moderate form "which emphasizes Indian cultural unities, can be seen as a legitimate movement within a broader conservative umbrella". And proceeds to, through the course of this book, though not in its entirety, expound on and develop the idea of moderate Hindu nationalism,
Conservatives “attach a great deal of importance to horizontal social cohesion within limited geographies such as villages, towns or countries.” Using Shakespeare’s ‘band of brothers’ phrase to refer to those in the army of Henry V, which consisted of aristocrats and peasants, those conscripted and those who volunteered, JR attempts to use this as a tenet of conservatism. It refers to “a shared solidarity across different, distinct persons, bound by mutual loyalty.”
He gives due credit to Burke and recognises the eminence of the Anglo-American conservative tradition. Its expressions and intuitions are found also in the Tirukkurals, the myths of Mahabharata, and other such pre-modern Indian classical literature. Both these texts deal with three pursuits of humankind: artha, kama, and dharma; and the fourth that takes care of itself when the first three are addressed - moksha.
Yuga Dharma: “correct conduct changes with time. Yuga means epoch or time period. Each yuga requires different responses from the virtuous.” An intriguing concept.
Modern Indian Conservatism
He considers pre-independence figures who had conservative tendencies. Rajaramohun Roy, the great reformer and supporter of British rule and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, whom JR calls the founder of Hindu conservatism. Bankim, though not as supportive as Roy, did hold that the British rule was providential in awakening an intellectual renaissance of Hinduism.
Gopal Krishna Gokhale: pushed Congress down the slow, gradual change path of political change. Faced opposition for his moderate views of constitutional change. Mahadev Govind Ranade and Maharshi D.K. Karve worked for social change, for political change unaccompanied by social changes was a disaster.
The principles of individualism and meritocracy are favoured by conservatives; over against collective victimhood and collective entitlements.
Phule, along with R.G. Bhandarkar set up schools and institutions rather than protest and march. A conservative sentiment, at its core. RG Bhandarkar - "we are pupils" of the English people over against the radical French.
Support for the British rule, says JR, was a modest conservative position. Something right-wing Twitter mobs would do well to take notice of.
Conservatism is opposed to universalist ideology. Perhaps that’s why a leftist from the West will find himself perfectly at home with the leftists in India. But the same cannot be said of conservatives. Yet, it is a universal impulse. The love for family, traditions and customs, the hesitancy for radical revolutions, and the pre-eminence of the Transcendent in social life are universal tendencies shared by all conservatives.
"We believe that each society will have to develop institutions and processes that are directly related to the history, geography, traditions and culture of that individual unit."
A concept which I hoped JR would address was that of natural law. He almost gets close to it at this point. He states that while the above statement is true, there are certain "self-evident" truths, such as the freedom of the individual. Perhaps a great weakness of this work is the failure to address natural law or at least the Hindu concept of Ṛta.
Burke cannot be divorced from his understanding of natural law; which comes out most clearly in the trial of Warren Hastings. Likewise to speak of the Anglo-American tradition with no reference to natural law is a great deficiency of this work. More on this later.
He says the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals can be seen in the contrast between Hobbes and Rousseau. I believe he missteps here. The social contract theory of Hobbes and Locke is more akin to contractarian liberalism than the conservatism of Burke and Blackstone.
Ch 1 - The Economic Sphere
Dadabhai Naoroji and RC Dutt were leading the conservative position on economics. They held that the bad effects of the British rule was not due to their expression of free-market, but to the contrary. BR Shenoy carried forward the laissez-faire tradition, with his warnings against the statist industrial policies and the Planning Commission of Nehru falling on deaf ears. PR Brahmananda, CN Vakil, DR Gadgil and VM Dandekar were others in this tradition.
The conservatives of the Swatanatra Party were not consequentialists, but rather “moralists” who opposed policies like central planning because they were bad in principle, they were not moral. This is indeed a conservative position: to utter the m-word; as opposed to a classical liberal or libertarian take on free-markets.
Rajaji translated sections of the Tiukkural, which focuses on the three trivargas: inbam, porul and aram; referred to as kama, artha and dharma in the Mahabharata. The statist policies were immoral because it “cramps the individual initiative”, and are lacking in dharma or aram (righteousness).
JR has captured the conservative position on economics, for far too long, conservatives have been outsourcing their economics from classical liberals and libertarians, as Yoram Hazony most recently has noted.
Minoo Masani saw the danger inherent in the Indian planning and opposed it because like it did elsewhere, it would happen so in India as well: the loss of individual liberty. While it did not happen during Nehru's period, with the reign of his daughter, Masani’s fears actualized.
The likes of Raghuram Rajan and Surjit Bhalla defended the free markets on an empirical basis, and not on a moral basis. While the empirical basis is valid, capitalism based on empiricism alone is insufficient to address the problem of tyranny in statist policies. Further Deepak Lal, Kaushik Basu, Arvind Panagariya, Arvind Subramanian, Jagdish Bhagwati, Padma Desai, TN Srinivasan, and Baron Desai are also mentioned, forming a conglomerate of free-market Indian economists.
Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze cannot be simply hailed as heroes of the left, says JR. Deepak Lal and Sen are moralists, in the tradition of Rajai and Gandhi. Being unaware of their specific writings, I refrain from commenting on the veracity of this conclusion.
Ch 2 - The Political Sphere
The inevitable question comes up, if Raja Rammohun, Naoroji et al are conservatives, why are they referred to as liberals? The reason being, according to the author, that they received a more favourable welcome from the Liberals than the Tories.
The position towards the Brits was one that dominated the political discussions. JR puts forward that conservatives were not anti-Brits but had varying yet favourable views of this encounter with the West. "The Indian encounter with the Anglo-Saxon has been seen as one that resulted in a refreshing outburst of creativity, which had constructive outcomes."
Every time we read of an atrocity committed against Dalits today, perhaps we should remember...[to] be less vituperative about British rule and acknowledge that the Raj did have a liberating touch for India’s downtrodden.Ambedkar, Phule, and Periyar among others supported the British rule, worrying that Home Rule might undo the liberating changes brought for the downtrodden lower castes. It was also common to come across the view that it was better that it was the Brits and not the French or the Portuguese.
Two Strands
Raja Rammohun Roy represented the Burkean branch and Bankim Chatterjee, the Hindu conservatism. Roy's Burkean conservatism is tied to his support of the British rule, his advocacy of English, and his support for the English common law tradition.
While making allusions to Burke and Burkean conservatism, he makes no explicit mention of the Christianity of Burke or the Anglo-American tradition, given that he sees no issue in imbuing a religious character to Hindu conservatism. Burke's Christian philosophy in general and natural law, in particular, is essential for understanding his conservatism. Refer to the works of Peter Stanlis and Samuel Burgess for more on this. (For eg: https://lawliberty.org/edmund-burke-n...)
Ambedkar preferred gradualism over radical change, hence the Constitution relies heavily upon the Government of India Act, 1935. JR calls it "one of the finest pieces of legislation to come out of Westminster". Hence the Constitution, according to him, is a conservative document.
He addresses criticism of Swaminathan Aiyar over calling it a conservative document as, it did with one stroke abolish discrimination on the basis of caste, gender, and religion. But he counters this by arguing that the 1950 Constitution is a result of two centuries of change and development starting with the Regulating Act of 1700. He acknowledges the bad of Manusmriti and the good that English law brought to India. The IPC was clear in no discrimination for punishments based on caste.
This is the culmination of all contributions of the Rammohun tradition: the Constitution of India.
Now to the other strand - the Bankim tradition. Hindu Mahasabha was founded in 1915 and it was quite common to be a part of both the Mahasabha and Congress.
The Hindu nationalist view of Raj was variegated; Madan Malaviya and Hans Gupta were not as ill-disposed to the Raj as were Savarkar and Moonje. While they advocated English education, they were suspicious of it. Hedgewar and Golwalker left the Hindu Mahasabha to form the RSS in 1925. RSS sought to revive and strengthen Hindu communities.
Per JR, the Hindu Mahasabha cooperated with the Muslim League in the elections in 1935; hence despite the “relatively strong” positions of Savarkar and Golwalker, the Hindu nationalist movement was not anti-Muslim. Pretty bleak argument there. Further, it is Savarkar’s “militant and radical traditions” that currently dominate the Hindutva conservatism.
Shyam Prasad Mukerjee, along with the Hindu Mahasabha opposed the invasion of India by Japan. Perhaps a point that modern Hindutva conservatives must consider, as their vitriolic hatred of the British Raj, Gandhi, Nehru et al drives them to hail Bose as a hero. JR is crystal clear: Bose was no conservative, he was “pro-fascist”. And he would have probably established a military state, like that of Mao, were he to succeed.
While acknowledging the racist views of “several Hindu nationalists”, he provides a defence that they are products of their time. I concur; political correctness has driven the progressives to dismiss many great men. But JR's argument is faulty, considering that the modern ‘decolonisers’ are regurgitating such views.
He further distinguishes between conservatism proper and revivalists. He admits that the Hindu nationalists with their arguments of decolonisation, jettisoning of English, and castigation of Macaulay are not conservative, but revivalists; who look to the distant past with no appreciation of the immediate past.
Partition
With respect to the Partition and Pakistan, JR states two views for conservatives to oppose: first the success of India and the relative failure of Pakistan must not lead one to conclude the superiority of secularism to theocracy. This argument, I would extend to the Hindu nationalists, who rejoice in the failure of the 'Islamic' state (but somehow, ironically their theocracy might work). The second view is that Pakistan should be reintegrated into India.
Post-Independence Conservatism
The Rammohun tradition was more popular for the first few years of independence; Rajendra Prasad, Rajaji, Sardar Patel et al. As this patriotic bunch faded into oblivion; with Nehru at the helm, statists policies arose, aided by his compatriots, who were socialists and communists. Rajaji, Morarji Desai, GB Pant, BC Roy, BR Shenoy, Minoo Masani tried their best to save the economy. It appears that the battle was fought on economic lines post-independence, hence a coalition between conservatives like Rajaji and classical liberals such as Masani and Shenoy.
The conservatives and classical liberals left the Congress to form the Swatantra party. This coalition met an early demise. Perhaps a lesson is that the free-markets is not all (a point which Yoram Hazony has been addressing lately).
Now to the Bankim tradition. With Gandhi’s assassination, Godse became the face of Hindu nationalism. This hurt the Hindutva cause and set them back a few decades.
Hindu nationalism pretty much was under the radar up until the tyrannical Emergency period of Indira Gandhi. RSS was seen as one of the few opponents of this dictatorship-style “democracy”. Jana Sangh, formed by Mukerjee after he left the Hindu Mahasabha in the 1950s, entered the Janata Party in 1977, and with the break-up of the Janata Party, it became the BJP. Initially putting forward a Gandhian socialism, the BJP eventually, with the Shah Bano debacle and perhaps more so the Ayodhya dispute, awakened Hindu nationalism and Hindu pride.
The BJP utilised the Ayodhya dispute, to rally a call for a revival of the Hindu consciousness. The invaders destroyed the temple of their precious Rama and built a mosque. The best the Congress could give was a small shrine in a section of the mosque? Thus, Hindu nationalism was recast.
After a brief excurses fawning over Modi and bemoaning the leftist academia, JR moves to the religious angle. He acknowledges that the BJP faces a challenge in handling the fallouts over religion. I have no hesitation in saying that the crimes associated with the particular issue of meat alone ought to disqualify the popular brand of Hindu nationalism present in the current ethos of having any sort of conservative attitude. But he is more optimistic.
Ch 3 - Cultural Sphere
The most important cultural issue is whether there was, prior to the British, a unified cultural identity. Myths are important for us as humans. They inculcate virtue, they speak to our hearts. Indians, across religious boundaries, must treasure the Ramayana and Mahabharata. It’s preposterous to assume that they are remnants of a bygone casteist era, and must be disowned. JR uses myths of Rama, Sita, Lakshmana, and Arjuna to establish the cultural idea of Bharatvarsha.
JR wants to place the blame of the mistreatment of tribals at the feet of the British and not the upper-caste Sansktrised Hindus. That’s an odd conclusion, given JR's acknowledgement of the Britisher’s liberating efforts for the downtrodden.
The cultural unity is in the idea of the holy motherland. He cites the pilgrimage of various religions across the country to try and establish this point. The mother figure is central to Indian culture.
While I had no issues with such a characterization, the extending argument made by JR with the aid of Ashis Nandy, I have to take a strong exception. Drawing from the mother figure being central, he concludes that there is feminine in each of us. That the West ought “to engage with the feminine in us and in themselves and head towards an androgynous denouement.“
He puts forward that this approach to “androgynous denouement” may be the “most creative” contribution that Indians can provide constructively to mankind. If anything it would contribute to the problem that our culture is facing with regard to the rise of expressive individualism and the transgender craze that has gripped this generation.
“Androgynous denouement” sounds eerily similar to the whole woke leftist agenda of ‘deconstructing’ gender. Rather, to concede that man by himself is not complete and the woman by herself is not complete, but the two are polar complementary; made one in the one-flesh union of marriage gives due respect to sexual design. Respecting the complementarity of men to women bestows significance and meaning to manhood and womanhood.
Continued in the comments section
August 27, 2020
A good read. Very helpful with deep insights. I very much liked the tone of the author throughout the book. Very humble and suggestive as if ‘offering’ his thoughts instead of ‘forcing’ them upon the reader. Although, at times the ‘anti-western’ touch did creep out which I found unnecessary as he produced such a wonderful piece of work through extensive and erudite study. In the culture section I was a little disappointed as to why he didn’t include the rich historic two thousand year old Christian culture? Just a quick mention of a basilica... At times he aligned that rich Christian heritage in India with colonialism and the Raj which dropped (a little) back into the ‘anti western’ tone ( in my view). Christians had settled in the land of India way before the era of the British. Towards the end there was a mention of churches in Europe being ‘empty’ and that Europe has a ‘hedonistic’ decline. This was in contrast to the authors’ view of India as a young and vigorous nation. Not only is it unnecessary to ‘prop up’ India by revealing how other parts of the world are bad but the research was not thorough here. The church ‘buildings’ may be empty but the house church movement and overall revival of the Christian faith throughout Europe is significantly on the rise. Calling Europe ‘hedonistic’ was unnecessary as well as that level of sensuality and pleasure is rampant in India too and is evident in the Mahabharata and other Indian scriptures as well. The weaknesses of the human heart are not isolated to a particular culture or continent alone. We all face it. I thought I’d mention these points (if I may) only because the ‘classy’ and sophisticated style of the author was slightly compromised at times. Overall a wonderful piece of work. Well done!
Rahil Patel
Rahil Patel
April 29, 2020
There's a lot one can say about this book- it might be inadequate to some, even frivolous. But it serves a very important purpose, i.e., to give a primer to Indian Conservatism, to some degree.
The brand of conservatism that Rao draws from is different from your average "RW" person who is woefully ignorant about their ideology in general. He tries to accord respectability to Indian Conservatism, which is commendable, through portraying similarities between Burkean tradition and values that have been a part of the Vedas, Kural and other scriptures as well as the Rammohan school of thought. It's a unique, less-talked-about perspective which one might find refreshing.
However, this book could have been so much more. It simply draws contours and randomly fills in nuggets of information and analysis. The chapter on the social sphere has to be the worst. It almost seems like Rao's casually talking, sharing anecdotes here and there, rather than a book that is supposed to lead to stimulating intellectual discourse. He says that moderate Hindu nationalism is legitimate but does very little to tell us why. In that way, this book is a disappointment.
But this book is a starting point to dig deeper. If nothing, the author at least gives a heavy reading list by the end of the book. Small redemptions.
The brand of conservatism that Rao draws from is different from your average "RW" person who is woefully ignorant about their ideology in general. He tries to accord respectability to Indian Conservatism, which is commendable, through portraying similarities between Burkean tradition and values that have been a part of the Vedas, Kural and other scriptures as well as the Rammohan school of thought. It's a unique, less-talked-about perspective which one might find refreshing.
However, this book could have been so much more. It simply draws contours and randomly fills in nuggets of information and analysis. The chapter on the social sphere has to be the worst. It almost seems like Rao's casually talking, sharing anecdotes here and there, rather than a book that is supposed to lead to stimulating intellectual discourse. He says that moderate Hindu nationalism is legitimate but does very little to tell us why. In that way, this book is a disappointment.
But this book is a starting point to dig deeper. If nothing, the author at least gives a heavy reading list by the end of the book. Small redemptions.
August 9, 2022
After the mainstream historian Ram Guha made the claim that there are no conservative intellectuals in India, various authors took up the task to respond to the challenge. Jaitirth Rao - founder of MPhasis and board member of Swarajya Magazine - responded to the challenge with a set of essays (in fact proofread by Mr. Guha himself) but all the same challenges the caricature of conservatism, which I believe went over the heads of many of the negative reviews.
The author, rather than be boxed into the fascist-reactionary mindset, starts by appropriating the acclaimed reformists such as Gandhi and Roy into conservative fold. I believe the author is actually fairly justified in doing so because most educated hindus are often in fact moderates who vote for hindu reformism. But an interesting consequence is actually that most moderates were Raj loyalists, which we are now conditioned to believe is the greatest evil of the world; so the author spends a good amount of time defending the indic loyalist.
The essays act as a nice primer for anyone interested in getting started on the indic intellectual outlook; but not really a "history" book, unlike what the title claims. Those interested in a more comprehensive take may want to read Awakening Bharat Mata by Swapan Dasgupta which is an collection of some of the historic debates, speeches and works written from a conservative perspective.
The author, rather than be boxed into the fascist-reactionary mindset, starts by appropriating the acclaimed reformists such as Gandhi and Roy into conservative fold. I believe the author is actually fairly justified in doing so because most educated hindus are often in fact moderates who vote for hindu reformism. But an interesting consequence is actually that most moderates were Raj loyalists, which we are now conditioned to believe is the greatest evil of the world; so the author spends a good amount of time defending the indic loyalist.
The essays act as a nice primer for anyone interested in getting started on the indic intellectual outlook; but not really a "history" book, unlike what the title claims. Those interested in a more comprehensive take may want to read Awakening Bharat Mata by Swapan Dasgupta which is an collection of some of the historic debates, speeches and works written from a conservative perspective.
August 25, 2020
I had a lot of expectations when I picked up this book, given the paucity of the Indian conservative narrative and our need to create one. The writer tries to paint a picture, mainly on the western definition of conservatism and the more I read , I get a feeling that his definition is something that most of the Indians fit into and sometimes feels very "English" (In a cultural sense).A lot of details seems anecdotal and based on the author's opinion rather than solid facts. I respect his command over the subject and also agree with some of his opinions (some, not all!) but at times, i think the Indian liberal can easily fit in to the author's definition of an Indian conservative (I emphasize the word "Indian").
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews