And yet, this book, published on the occasion of the celebration of the golden jubilee of India's Independence, is something of a disappointment. Much water has flown under the bridges over which Clio, the goddess of history, rules since the time Nanda engaged in his Herculean efforts. New facts, new theories, new interpretations have been advanced and indeed new ways of looking at history itself have been developed. In an era when the theory of relativity spans more than physics, there are no longer absolutes in terms of 'facts'. The prescription of Ranke regarding history-writing wie es eigentlich gewesen (simply to show how it really was) is hopelessly outdated. Every 'fact' has been shown up to have more than one dimension; every discourse has been deconstructed to have more than one meaning and every movement has been demonstrated to have more than one set of participants. Carlyle's idea that history is merely the biography of great men has been proved to be more appropriate for hagiography than historiography.
While Nanda is aware of all this, he by and large sticks to the tried and trusted modes of history-writing: focus on leaders, rely on 'official' accounts, examine 'grand' patterns. He outlines the history of the freedom movement through the lives of illustrious leaders and recounts issues and events too with reference to those "great men who jumped into the freedom movement to shape India". India's pre-eminent political biographer does not allow himself to lapse into either outright hero-worship or demonisation and guards himself against takings sides even on issues and events which caused splits in the Congress or exit of significant figures from that organisation. He notes some of the weaknesses of the leaders but ends up evaluating Gokhale and Tilak, Gandhi and Subhas Bose and almost every member of the leadership positively. Even Jinnah is not portrayed as altogether evil, as is the wont of many 'nationalist' historians.
And yet, Nanda's eyes are turned firmly upwards. Thus, for instance, in this book celebrating freedom the people are largely ignored and if they figure at all, it is only as devoted followers of the great and the glorious. Patriotism becomes principally a concern of the 'leaders' and the uncertainties and even contradictions in popular action, as Shahid Amin for instance has revealed in his analysis of Chauri Chaura, are altogether absent in Nanda's account of the same event. Nanda concentrates on the speeches and actions of 'leaders'—extremist, moderate, populist, radical, saintly, egotistical, but 'leaders' nevertheless. Even the dimension of economic nationalism highlighted by Bipan Chandra and his acolytes or the ugly underbelly of provincial politics uncovered by the members of the so-called Cambridge school are largely missing from this book.
Nanda's present book is aimed at the so-called lay reader who does not have the inclination to apply himself to his more detailed biographies and other works. Otherwise, his views on the importance of the so-called moderates or the significance of Gandhi or the role of Nehru both before and after Independence are available in far greater detail elsewhere and are merely extracted here. This potted history flowers only when Nanda goes beyond abbreviating what he has written elsewhere and reflects on some general civilisational concerns. For instance, the points that he makes about the back-to-back but nevertheless non-antagonistic existence of different religious communities in India and the consequent implications for the way politics developed are far more interesting for those who are familiar with Nanda's earlier prolific writings.
It is in this context also that even the 'moderate' Nanda invites a little argument. His statement that "the pessimists, who talk of 'India Invented' or India being a 'civilisation-state', underrate the heritage of the national movement and its strong roots" cannot be allowed to pass without contestation. As the perpetrator of a book as well as a television series entitled India Invented, I for one am neither a pessimist nor do I disregard the national movement. Nevertheless, it is obvious to me, as to many others engaged in the enterprise of both trying to understand India and attempting to change it, that it is time to move on to a more variegated and multi-dimensional history, recognising the primacy of the "ordinary Indian", drawing from an understanding of culture and civilisation that goes beyond "great men" and "major events" and affirming republicanism with all its complexities. Given the valuable historical work which has revealed our leaders, warts and all, and seeing the many daunting inequities which too are part of the Indian heritage, it requires incurable optimism to not succumb to the oppressive present but to conceive the future with due reference to the past. "India Invented" is just one term to describe that adventure.
Meanwhile, there is of course a need in these depressing times for the literature of celebration, particularly of contemporary history. It is good therefore that formidable historiography has thus been converted into this much more accessible history. One only wishes that more care had been taken in its production: it is unforgivable, for instance, that the front flap of the book's dust jacket should refer to the great 'moderate' leader, one of the heroes of Nanda, as C.K. Gokhale. As meticulous a man as any, Gopal Krishna Gokhale would not have been amused.
