What do you think?
Rate this book
Nehru's India: A History in Seven Myths
An iconoclastic history of the first two decades after independence in India
Nehru’s India brings a provocative but nuanced set of new interpretations to the history of early independent India. Drawing from her extensive research over the past two decades, Taylor Sherman reevaluates the role of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, in shaping the nation. She argues that the notion of Nehru as the architect of independent India, as well as the ideas, policies, and institutions most strongly associated with his premiership―nonalignment, secularism, socialism, democracy, the strong state, and high modernism―have lost their explanatory power. They have become myths.
Sherman examines seminal projects from the time and also introduces readers to little-known personalities and fresh case studies, including India’s continued engagement with overseas Indians, the importance of Buddhism in secular India, the transformations in industry and social life brought about by bicycles, a riotous and ultimately doomed attempt to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in Bombay, the early history of election campaign finance, and the first state-sponsored art exhibitions. The author also shines a light on underappreciated individuals, such as Apa Pant, the charismatic diplomat who influenced foreign policy from Kenya to Tibet, and Urmila Eulie Chowdhury, the rebellious architect who helped oversee the building of Chandigarh.
Tracing and critiquing developments in this formative period in Indian history, Nehru’s India offers a fresh and definitive exploration of the nation’s early postcolonial era.
Nehru’s India brings a provocative but nuanced set of new interpretations to the history of early independent India. Drawing from her extensive research over the past two decades, Taylor Sherman reevaluates the role of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, in shaping the nation. She argues that the notion of Nehru as the architect of independent India, as well as the ideas, policies, and institutions most strongly associated with his premiership―nonalignment, secularism, socialism, democracy, the strong state, and high modernism―have lost their explanatory power. They have become myths.
Sherman examines seminal projects from the time and also introduces readers to little-known personalities and fresh case studies, including India’s continued engagement with overseas Indians, the importance of Buddhism in secular India, the transformations in industry and social life brought about by bicycles, a riotous and ultimately doomed attempt to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in Bombay, the early history of election campaign finance, and the first state-sponsored art exhibitions. The author also shines a light on underappreciated individuals, such as Apa Pant, the charismatic diplomat who influenced foreign policy from Kenya to Tibet, and Urmila Eulie Chowdhury, the rebellious architect who helped oversee the building of Chandigarh.
Tracing and critiquing developments in this formative period in Indian history, Nehru’s India offers a fresh and definitive exploration of the nation’s early postcolonial era.
304 pages, Hardcover
Published October 11, 2022
10 people are currently reading
178 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 14, 2023
Yesterday as India celebrated the birth anniversary of our first Prime Minister it also marked the high point of a disinformation project called "Blame it on Nehru". To sift, fact from fiction in this video at Amaltas Talks, I review Taylor C Sherman's book 'Nehru's India: A History in Seven Myths'. https://youtu.be/m3qFqiT6Izg?si=yshsJ...
December 20, 2023
Historians of modern India often speak about Nehruvian consensus. They bemoan that the Nehruvian consensus has now broken down. What they mean is that Nehru had made ideas of socialism, secularism, non alignment, strong state and inclusive nationalism acceptable across the political divide. This book challenges, this common place assumption and calls the so-called Nehruvian consensus, a myth.
Let us take each of the elements of the Nehruvian consensus one by one. Was India socialist during Nehru’s time? Other than expanding the role of the state in the economy and constraining private businesses, there was not much socialism. In the countryside there was not even a semblance of socialism. Land continued to be under private ownership. In the name of socialism, Nehru government promoted ideas of collective self reliance through programs like Community Development Program. What about non alignment? According to the author, this was an aspiration and not a reality. India was very much part of the Anglo-American trade network and could not come out of it. India was also heavily dependent on the West for weapons and aid. Secularism, argues the author, was more symbolic than real. It was limited to cultural appropriation of Muslim heritage rather than active involvement of minorities in India’s national life. Atrocities against Muslims continued unabated. Did Nehru impose modernity on India? Not quite. Building of Chandigarh and the Damodar Valley Development are often cited as Nehru’s embrace of rootless modernity. The author argues that in both the projects underneath the veneer of modernity, enough concessions were made for Indian tastes and traditions.
The author points out that throughout the Nehruvian period, the capacity of the state, to decisively intervene in society and make changes, remained weak. Nehru of course had to work with a colonial era bureaucracy which was resistant to change and the ability of the Congress party to mobilise the masses was also limited. What little success Nehru had was by way of nurturing individuals with aspirations similar to his own such as Prasantha Chandra Mahalanobis.
So what is the big takeaway from the book? Nehru is not quite the architect of modern India that he is made out to be. Certainly not in the sense that he actually made modern India; but I guess, he can be credited for conceiving or imagining a modern India. Is it some kind of post modern de-construction of Nehru? I am not competent to comment. But to the credit of the author, she has written a readable book that can be enjoyed by all intelligent lay readers.
Let us take each of the elements of the Nehruvian consensus one by one. Was India socialist during Nehru’s time? Other than expanding the role of the state in the economy and constraining private businesses, there was not much socialism. In the countryside there was not even a semblance of socialism. Land continued to be under private ownership. In the name of socialism, Nehru government promoted ideas of collective self reliance through programs like Community Development Program. What about non alignment? According to the author, this was an aspiration and not a reality. India was very much part of the Anglo-American trade network and could not come out of it. India was also heavily dependent on the West for weapons and aid. Secularism, argues the author, was more symbolic than real. It was limited to cultural appropriation of Muslim heritage rather than active involvement of minorities in India’s national life. Atrocities against Muslims continued unabated. Did Nehru impose modernity on India? Not quite. Building of Chandigarh and the Damodar Valley Development are often cited as Nehru’s embrace of rootless modernity. The author argues that in both the projects underneath the veneer of modernity, enough concessions were made for Indian tastes and traditions.
The author points out that throughout the Nehruvian period, the capacity of the state, to decisively intervene in society and make changes, remained weak. Nehru of course had to work with a colonial era bureaucracy which was resistant to change and the ability of the Congress party to mobilise the masses was also limited. What little success Nehru had was by way of nurturing individuals with aspirations similar to his own such as Prasantha Chandra Mahalanobis.
So what is the big takeaway from the book? Nehru is not quite the architect of modern India that he is made out to be. Certainly not in the sense that he actually made modern India; but I guess, he can be credited for conceiving or imagining a modern India. Is it some kind of post modern de-construction of Nehru? I am not competent to comment. But to the credit of the author, she has written a readable book that can be enjoyed by all intelligent lay readers.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews