If you are an Indian with a national pride, I would be surprised if you get through this book with your pride still afloat. Naipaul literally rips through the Indian psyche in an uncompromising and practical manner. Every aspect of India, its education system, its mindset, its administrative setup, political and religious beliefs have been ridiculed and I am not angered as the logic is telling in most occasions. Even though, this book was completed in 1976, I can see that not much has changed as I too perceive Indians being unclear of their identity. 'The nation as a whole still lacks ideology and just swallows up ideas from other countries.' This is one of the key messages from the book. The book is a must read for an Indian just because it forces the much-needed introspection. I wouldn't recommend it to other nationals as it portrays the Indian citizens as menial workers who lack the faculty of logical reasoning and thinking and this portrayal can influence general perception on Indians. Overall, an absolute classic by Naipaul who has shown his prowess as an astute observer and a gifted writer.

India bashing at a thought-provoking level

I have been thinking of reading Naipaul for a long long time. I think I first saw the title "India: A Million Mutinies Now" and was impressed by it. Also, I know that Naipaul is a very accomplished writer. It's worth reading a Nobel Laureate and a Pulitzer Prize winner! Also, I am reading The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan and An Era of Darkness by Shashi Tharoor, both about India and I thought it would be a good idea to get yet another point of view about India.

In both The Silk Roads as well as An Era of Darkness I saw India as a victim of the schemes of the British in general and of The East India Company more specifically. I was wallowing in a sense of sympathetic patriotic musing and by the title of this book, I thought it would give me more or less the same type of feeling. Ten to fifteen pages through the book, I was aghast. Naipaul was not being sympathetic towards India. He was beginning to question "The Indian Mindset" and India's ability to catch up with the rest of the world, in an unsympathetic, almost satirical, definitely critical tone and voice. I suddenly realized that what was happening was "India Bashing".

Two thoughts came to my mind immediately. Who is the Naipaul to criticize my country and the mindset of Indians? and with that the thought of quitting reading the book. The experience I was having was akin to when I began reading The Asura by Anand Neelakanthan. It was a sense of discomfort that comes when one is reading counter-popular views. That sort of discomfort sets in because we are not only used to those popular views but also feel a sense of security in believing those views. Ravana can never be a good guy because that confuses the sense of good and bad we have developed for a long time. Likewise, India can only be a victim and hence all accountability of all actions we have taken since independence can be attributed to India being a victim. Any talk counter to that is likely to be uncomfortable for us.

Two counter observations kept me going. One, using the novel as a means of social inquiry and two, the fact that Naipaul was writing his first-hand experiences of being in India during the time of Emergency. Naipaul takes the novels of popular writers such as R.K. Narayan and U.R. Ananthamurthy and uses the plot, the narrative, and the characters to assess the historical context and the prevalent mindset of Indians. He uses his first-hand observations, conversations, and contemporary newspaper accounts and draws parallels from the novels to bring his point home. This was a totally new form of narrative, which I had not seen in any earlier works and this inspired me to move on despite the initial distaste. The only other similar work that comes to my mind is The Second Hand Time by Svetlana Alexievich which records history as a narrative by and of the common people.

Contemporary India is pulled in two opposite directions. A strong pull is seen towards progress and wealth (which many call 'crony capitalistic tendencies') while an equally strong pull is seen towards protecting the "culture and diversity" of yesteryears. That is to say that the Indian tendency is to either shun all that is old and move forward boldly or regress back into age-old "self-0bservation". This is the point that Naipaul makes in the whole of the book. He argues that Indian's do not strongly identify themselves as one nation having one antiquity and one origin. The concept of racial identification is missing in Indians as they are not exposed to the concept of a race as strongly as the westerners are. All said and done, we are simply united because of geographical proximity and not because of adequate and rich social ties.

Enough advantage has been taken pre and post-independence of this kind of apparent unity by colonial forces as well as by later political parties. Naipaul criticizes this aspect abundantly and points out this as an inherent weakness in the Indian psyche. He posits that when confronted by a real-world crisis, Indians tend to look inward and easily dwell in the comfort provided by isolation because of self-absorption. This is exactly what Mahatma Gandhi does too. Naipaul takes the Mahatma's autobiography and stresses on two points. The Mahatma's account is overtly self-absorptive. There is no description of the situations in Brittain, South Africa or India but only a concern about what was going on inside and what he did as a result. However, in this Naipaul makes a factual error.

Mahatma Gandhi is neither a historian nor a writer. He simply wanted to write about how he became a Mahatma. Thus, he might have written more about himself and his thought processes rather than anything else. At the same time, a lack of narrative about the context, about the circumstances in which Gandhi's life happens, may also have been omitted because of the same reason. This cannot be taken up as Gandhi's short-coming as a person or his lack of understanding about the country or its issues. However, it can be admitted that such self-absorption maybe the reason for a lack of communicable vision of the New India from the Mahatma. Mahatma's India was colonial India rooted in villages and in self-administration. It was not a new and fresh India poised for growth in the modern world. This political vision or rather lack of it is one of the reasons for India to have the "Hindu Rate of Growth".

Naipaul's sharp narrative cuts deeper flesh when the urban-rural divide is pronouncedly seen through the chawls of Mumbai. His dexterous pen switches and slashes between issues of caste, religion, Hinduism, Naxalism, Journalism, and Governance with such deftness that it cuts many a raw nerve. But the truth of the matter stands and one has to glare at its ugly face and bear the stench of rotten politics of the 1980s that have made India what it was at that time. Naipaul doesn't spare even the technological laggardness of its institutions. Whether he talks about the prominence of "an improved bullock carts" project or the laughability of NID's design innovation, he never spares the intellectual and creative poverty of Indians.

What I learned from this reading is that one has to unite India based on a vision. Something that Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam did. In this vision, India cannot be it's past and she cannot be simply a castle in the air or a day dreamer's muse. The vision of India of the future must be a unifying one, one that brings its masses together into a social fabric that is rich in its social ties and bondages. We must look into our antiquity with pride, but that must not become a shackle of our progress. We must discard what we must and absorb what we must and progress to be the leaders of the world, once again!

I have always wanted to read VS Naipaul and I finally have, so that is the first tick on my 2022 wish list.

Now coming to the book, it is both dated and relevant at the same time. It was written in the late 1970s and gives an insight into the politics and people of the time. Much has changed in India since then and Gandhi has become even more archaic, now completely relegated to history books.

What remains relevant today is the caste politics, a fragmented sense of self that aligns with a regional identity rather than an Indian image. A stepping back and clinging to an ancient ideal rule with all its cracks as the ideal state rather than learning from the past and adapting just the positive to the new reality.

Overall it was an informative book with interesting insight.

Initially was little hesitant to read the book due to lot of negative reviews. This book is indeed full of criticism of India. But upon retrospection, one finds that most of them were actually true allegations. Especially the Gandhi and Gandhian ideology of poverty.
Overall a good read.

Naipaul views about India has been formed by a post colonial perspective and a longing for the lost home. The book greatly deals with the critical inquiry of Indian mind and it's natural desire to search a meaning in the mind which is no longer relevant. He talks at a great length about the inadequacies of the Gandhian thought process, an ignorant attitude towards poverty, technology and outer world.

Started with a shock as I started reading it and started to kind of agree with what he said but then
too much negativity of the book got to me. .. Could not take it anymore.. and quit.

A little balance is what I would have liked.

V S Naipaul’s second book much acclaimed, but rarely understood India Trilogy -India : A Wounded Civilization comes from Don Vidia’s experience post the Emergency Years of Indira Gandhi where individual freedom was brutally suppressed and views -whether political,social or almost of any kind were subverted to suit the whims of the state .I bought the book pure on the author’s reputation having been graced by a friend on how the man has an almost radar-like precision in his views on whatever subject he chooses to focus his almost Zen-like attention on.Naipaul has never made any secret of the disillusionment with the country of his birth ; he fidgets and then almost resolutely declines to call it his home before and even after.all the more is reflected in his writing where he murders and dissects everything that is associated with India ; leaving the carcass to rot in the sun without any pangs of guilt.Why does his choose to annihilate India in this short-travelogue is not difficult to understand.His ancestors were forced migrants and you do tend to harbor a particular distaste for a country which hasn’t been too kind on your kin.This comes out to be the greatest undoing for this book for you are surprised that in all his travels in the country Naipaul couldn’t find anything even to sympathize, leave alone pleasurable.

The book starts with a semi-historical account of the Vijayanagar kingdom with Naipaul making his first incision by concluding that the kingdom was,in his view the last remnant of Hindu civilization in India .Although he makes a marked observation when he points out that plunder in the region has caused the human resource drought that has plagued the region for almost 4 centuries .Naipaul also recounts of his meetings with R.K. Narayan ;the creator of Malgudi with zest but his enthusiasm for India has already taken a beating by the end of second chapter.He almost ,complains that he found Narayan’s characters in his books far too removed from the ground .Taking examples from R.K’s novels like Mr.Sampath Naipaul borders on mocking the Hindu view of life which takes deeper contemplation before any action as its primary responsibility.However,to even out things a bit he credits Vijay Tendulkar and his plays Sakharam Binder and The Vultures to be more nearer to his almost cynical vision of the country. I have been a bit caustic until now so let me refrain from going the Naipaul way.The language has been Naipaulishly simple ,yet effective; you can conjure up the thoughts pretty clearly with limited cranial capacity usage.Naipaul has almost ,every time, refrained from letting the language hold sway over his thoughts and ideas; something which his more ‘sensational’ contemporaries are more visibly seen indulging in.

Although I would again go back to where we started -In an almost quizzical error Naipaul chooses to describe the Indian state as comical,aimless and Russian something which the narrative bears a close resemblance to when the aforementioned words come about.The intensity of criticism however makes a return when N chooses to distance himself from the North and Focus on Mumbai -Bombay at that time .Indian Diaspora,especially those concerned with engagements in liberal arts have found Bombay as a romantic companion in their Indian journey .Mr N is no exception.However Naipaul gives very little of his time and attention towards the Gateway of India ; Instead he chooses to focus his attention on the narrow bylanes and chawls of Mumbai which I assume were the precursors of an Indian image for the outside world .

It has already become clear by now that the emergency was the sole reason for Naipaul’s visit to India.Indeed ,the timing couldn’t have been better.It is evidenced in the book that Indians themselves were not involved in the Emergency as such .this becomes clear from the imprisonment of JP and Morarji Desai ; former being the best Statesman India has ever produced and latter the first PM post the incumbent Nehruvian era .This is the best portion of the book although it doesn’t last for long .Then comes the most unforgiving part of this book where Naipaul focuses more on criticizing everything Gandhian ;Gandhi the man,his values ,his way of freeing India ,the perception of Gandhian values today which to a certain degree I would agree have lost their relevance today .I would rather be led to believe that Sir Vidia gave away to sensationalism here and this is not his actual opinion .Although this looks more like a guerrilla attack on the very first false impression Naipaul has of India.He opines that the Gandhian policy of self-renunciation ,celibacy,civil disobedience are mere attempts to bring out the Hindu,the Indian way of life were suffering of any kind is held in the highest order .For a country which was under the fist of British empire very strongly for almost 70 years (post 1857 ) and had shown no signs of fighting back,the tiniest act of picking up a fistful of salt held great symbolism and significance for an impoverished Indian mass ;the poverty of ideas ,opinions ,viewpoints and actions and a horrific famine some 15 years later on .But VS chooses to discredit this altogether .Instead he chooses to denounce the Salt March belittling the act itself.Naipaul views Gandhi himself as more of a Hindu caricature a person imprisoned in his own ideas of meat and alcohol avoidance ,trying very hard tacitly to preserve his very fragile Hinduism .The flogging of Gandhi does not stop here.Instead ,it moves on to one of the world’s most read and inspiring autobiographies.Naipaul finds that Gandhi has not given his sufficient attention to detail of his environment pervading around during his tenure in England and South Africa ,choosing to ignore the fact that Gandhi was not a wordsmith at any point of time in his life ;still he has left behind a treasure of experiences from his eventful life chronicling more his mistakes in all humility and grace and leaving the readers with lessons he learned from them and deliberately choosing not to focus on his achievements.

As I trudged on towards the end of the book I became convinced that I had never been far off from where we started.the cynicism remained the same,there was a paucity of ideas with some refreshing interjections ,the collective failure of India as a nation and Hinduism in protecting the heritage of this country which as I write this is undergoing the biggest transformation in its 5th year of superannuation.I found that there were merely selected examples from India ;here and there which are bound to happen in a vast nation and which could be given some leeway.But to assume that everything is dark ,morbid,repugnant and revolting would be stretching things a bit too far.I was not very satisfied with the great author’s view on my Country and I would spare no chance in inviting him for a visit to do a rain-check.This review although comes after a second and a very patient read of the book.I hope Sir Vidia obliges .

I have just finished chapter six of this book. Being somewhat interested in science and technology/research, I connect with this chapter the most. The author speaks about the lack of scientific inclination, the lack of humility that encourages learning and experimentation with due diligence (which is replaced by a nonchalant arrogance behind a veil of age or seniority) and of an "intellectual parasitism" that has hampered India's forays in research and development of new technology. I cannot stop myself making a connect between this and modern India's inclination to manufacturing rather than research and design, the poor management of intellectual property rights and aspects that relate to encouraging innovation and invention and the insecurity inventors and researchers face in India. The author rightly points out that most research and development in India is based, even today, on mimicry and/or a sluggish inertia that clings on to archaic design and hapless efforts to increase the functionality of old tools with minimal and/or impractical modifications which sometimes are no longer applicable to the productivity needs modern world. Rightly claimed, hypocrisy and arrogance are rampant in India (especially among the "intellectuals") along with a lack of civic sense and concern for society or collective development. A segmentation of society based on cast, religion and language, though disregarded by the constitution, is hard wired into the thought process of the masses. The book is an eye opener to the underlying psychology that has driven India for most of the past millennium; Naipaul captures its many facets without being stereotypical and provides a truly damning (as Time magazine puts it) account of contemporary India.

Apparently I'm reading Naipaul's Indian Trilogy in reverse. This book, the second, is a relatively short but severe critique of his grandparents' homeland -- which was in the midst of an "Emergency" shutdown by Indira Gandhi. But his collection of essays is hardly restricted to the then-current crisis and proves most fascinating when the author uses the works of novelist R.K. Narayan and playwright Vijay Tendulkar as well as the memoir of Mahatma Gandhi as springboards to discussions on Hinduism, castes, national identity, cultural discontinuity, and his skepticism about progress.

Naipaul is cutting edge in this desection of Indian culture and religion. Instead of going the theory way to ask and answer what is a nation and hence a patriot, he looks at the state of Indian-ness we have adopted. This was written 1975, during the Emergency, and while a lot of India has changed, now even hailing modernity and gadgets as a part of it, it still returns to this yearning of a pure historical place. The fight is particularly aimed today at Muslims, so as to eradicate the infiltrators and to return it to it's pure Hindu glory. But what after? What is a Hindu nation? Much is left out beyond it.

I think Naipaul did us a favor really; we took all the poverty porn and took it as a sign of our radical acceptance. Radical acceptance of what though? The workings of capitalism or our lack of vigor to change things? Acceptance of sub-par human conditions? Of our wretched apathy and consequent helplessness? The Indian way of things is repressiveness and regressiveness. Our want for security and familiarity, 'our place' in society, happy with mediocrity.

The correlation to caste was really insightful to me- i'm born outside of the caste system but i can see more clearly how it plays in the context of Indian society. When such a mechanism controls the entireity of outside society then small breakthroughs within the system fail to make any change. The lower caste man, however educated, is anyways relegated to cleaning toilets.

Naipaul has this one tiny paragraph in ode to the Janta party, a party that he says is gaining popularity through it's Hindu Nationalism. In some days we will know if that same party will come back in power for the second time, riding on the high tide of Hindu Nationalism. We have surpassed Gandhism today, we've progressed to hailing Gandhi's murderer today. From violence through silence and passivity, we choose violence with rigor today.
//i really don't know how to write reviews sorry

I finished the book! It took patience to read the portrait the author paints using tools of satire, mockery and complex analysis. Naipaul has chosen to look at India in a decadent manner and he may be correct in whatever he has written but he fails to weigh the wound that he describes with the development that the nation has made. He states that Hinduism and Gandhism have drained India of its intellect and that every person was either in a mental vacuum either by choice or was dragged into it by the larger society.
I am still confused by the idea the book seeks to bring forth and in my opinion Naipaul's critique is biased.

This is a book about India, but it could be also be about "India bashing" or "oriental fatalism". Naipaul criticizes the psychology of Hinduism from the perspective of someone who is culturally Hindu himself. The medieval squalor of Indian life is depicted in evocative terms. There are also extended attacks on Gandhi and certain Indian literary figures of the 1970s. The British are praised for intellectually stimulating India during their colonial enterprise. The world Naipaul is describing already seems to have been superseded. I didn't like this book since it seemed to be irrelevant to present circumstances. He cherrypicks history to paint as bleak a picture as possible and has total faith in the West, which admittedly was still at its unchallengeable apex during his early lifetime. He did not see the good or the possibilities that may exist or had existed within a non-Western people. Nonetheless, as always, he was correct that something was wrong. Naipaul wanted Hindu Indians to leave behind spiritual nonsense and stir to material action, rational calculation and race consciousness. For all his venom, it's intended as constructive criticism. He painfully wanted Hindus to thrive as a powerful modern people, rather than as bearers some ancient civilization. It seems like people did listen to him in India. They changed, and are changing. "The past has to be seen to be dead; or the past will kill," Naipaul wrote. My suggestion is to read only if you're able to bear through a drastically dark point of view about India.