I’m quite okay with what gets termed as ‘India Bashing’ (or, if for that matter, bashing of any other country) as often it is just a veil used by powerful to suppress criticism pointed at them but my one condition is that author should actually feel concerned for the people. That she/he is frustrated and seems to be frowning at the circumstances too is fine by me.

What is not fine is when it is done by a author who seems to scorning at the people, feeling disgusted at them as if he belongs to some higher race.

Now V. S Naipaul calls India a ‘difficult’ country. He has clear problems with Indian part of his Identity and he probably feels insulted by it. The tone he takes is not that of ‘We’ Indians but instead ‘they’ Indians’. Yet, he must write about it – because let us face it; a book about India is big bucks.

The ‘India’ shown in this book must have suited to then western temperament, when US didn’t approve of India-Russia relations. I bet he actually came to India with a title already in his mind and saw only what suited his prejudice.

He must began his book with Vijaynagar - (I)an ancient city-empire (II) which Indians have 'forgotten'. He will later contradict himself on both these counts (I) by condemning a politician for trying to look at country through its ancient past. (II) by blaming country of being struck in its past.

Not only that, he must scorn at the country – draw a really dark picture of the country, should tell you that India somehow ‘deserved’ to be colonized, has failed as an independent country and that its ways are too old for society to progress.

n   Poverty n

Let us began by admitting a lot of things he says about poverty of the country are true; although it is true they give only a partial image. For example, not all houses of country (even those of poor) are like those Slum dwellers of Mumbai as Naipaul would have you think. It is having you look at a man's armpit and then have you believe that this is what whole man look like. (Okay! I need to work with my metaphors.)

He also forgets to mention that country was one of the richest country in eighteenth century – and that british rule drained it dry. It takes his genius to look at country’s poverty and not feels frustrated at the powerful who caused it. Not only he managed to do so without talking about british rule but also without talking about corruption prevalent in Indian government services.

He would often distort the situation rather than making it clear; throw in random phrases the like ‘Hindu way of life’ and window dress the facts to make his case.

For example, not all parts of India were poor – he just conveniently missed the regions of Panjab and Harayana which had shown miraculous growth in food production during years of green revolution and while he is quick to say co-operatives won’t work in India; he forgot to mention the incredible success of Amul co-operative which by the time he was writing actually turned into a country wide initiative ‘Operation Flood’.

And let me tell you more, this ‘poor’ country with ‘no resources’ gave refuge to over ten million Bangladeshis during Bangladesh Liberation War just a few years before Naipaul wrote the book. Another fact missed by Naipaul. We sure don’t like to preach but it is not because we are bad at doing so. This time I’m going to preach a little. Compare Indian attitude back than to present European attitude towards a few lakhs of migrants –where governments decide how many people they are willing to take in (how easy it is to be indifferent to lives once we start talking in numbers!) and where those people will settle down.

Again what he says of untouchibility is particularly moving and probably true but let me tell you, it is not like we were not doing something. He will tell you that constitution had just been suspended but won’t tell you the constitution he just talked about was framed by an untouchable. Also that untouchability was banned under same constitution – something British didn’t do in their reign extending two centuries.

n   Hindu way of lifen

He puts all the blame on what he calls ‘Hindu way of life’ which in itself is the result of his own oriental bias. He is himself culprit of several fallacies he sees in others. There is just no Hindu way of life. You can’t expect one/eighth of the population of the world to be same in any way at all. His generalization come out of a character from R.K. Narayana – and no, not the famous opportunist ‘Raju’ from The Guide or ‘Swami’, the protagonist in Narayan’s children stories –those figures won’t suit the image he is trying to create He must choose an example of intellect, Mr. Sampath, accuse him of giving up on world he lives in and then generalize it for all Hindus. I mean all intellects are like that; look at Naipaul’s own life, is he not himself dependent on society for providing him with a lavish life style while all he does is just scorn at different cultures? Yet since Sampanth reads Sanskrit books while Naipaul reads western classics; it makes all the difference in the world. And even if he wants to call it the ‘Hindu way of life’; only a few people actually lived that kind of life.

n   Indifference to Politicsn

Nor Hindus or Indians were particularly indifferent to who is rulling upon them. He actually generalizes this notion from what he read of RK Narayan’s uncle. It is funny, isn’t it?

Yes, Emergency was the darkest spot in history of Indian democracy but even USA had its civil war. You can’t judge the book of my life from the chapter you walk in ( a quote from Goodreads)
And Indians love talking about their Politics. Politics is one of six most talked about subjects (the other five being – marriage, opposite sex, cricket, religion, bollywood; information source: yours only) India has one of the highest voter turn-up; much, much higher than most first world countries despite the fact that socio-economic costs of voting for an individual are higher in India than in west.

n  Indians and Hindus are not the samen

Actually this inter-changeable usage of words ‘Indians’ and ‘Hindus’ itself is wrong, criminally wrong. India has world’s third largest Musilm population; largest Sikh population and communities of several other religions. It is offensive to call a secular country or its people ‘Hindu’ – if Naipaul had actually looked at some of ‘Hindu’ philosophy he loves so talking so much about, he could have been surprised at diversity of thought in it.

No, he even goes to anarchy of calling all Muslim ruler as foreigners; even when most of whom never left India all their lives. He can’t call himself ‘Indian’ when his ancestors have been out of India for a hundred years, yet he wants to raise an eye brow when some Muslim tells him that his family is Indian for five centuries.

n   Dark Agesn

All the last thousand years of the country are ‘dark’ ages according to him. Dark ages which have produced among architecture – Taj Mahal, Lal Quila, Bhakra Dam; among saints and philosophers – Madhvacharya, Kabir, Nanak, Gobind, Vivekananda; among artists – Surdas (he could make it rain through his music); Premchand, Tagore etc. This list could go on and on but I just don’t see the point.

I'm not saying there were dark ages, there were - like other parts of world; but they sure never lasted beyond a couple of centuries.

n  The Western Ideasn

Now one last question - do you ever saw an Indian saying ‘Zero’ is an Indian invention; Westerners don’t know how to use it or they must inhibit use of what is a foreign idea to them? No? Then why do everybody keep saying democracy won’t work in East; that Judiciary is a western concept and so on? Not only that, but you must give Nobel Prize to people for saying that. BTW, Democracy had actually failed in Germany and Italy just a few decades back. It had also failed in country of its origion, France, just a few years after it was first established.

n  Gandhismn

At one point Naipaul will have you believe a politician's statement that India had once again turn into Importer of foodgrains (which is not true) at face value just because he is gandhian. Later he is questioning gandhian politics itself after Gandhi's death. You can't have an apple and eat it too. He is scarcastic when told that Gandhi presented himself in dhoti to English president to show the world India's poverty. Naipaul's thoughts - 'as if they didn't know it already'. And what is Naipaul himself doing if I may ask? Is he not selling India's poverty? It is not like Naipaul is here to offer some solutions. No he won’t even pretend to. According to him, India can’t be helped. I mean we don't need to import Naipaul for this, we have enough of those pessimistic useless uncles of our own, to tell us that.

Last time I checked, India was world’s second fastest growing economy. Take that Naipaul!

This book is about an old India, the India during the Emergency period, and the one that has since then undergone several metamorphoses, good, bad and evil.

Naipaul shows a mirror to every Indian's face. The ones who take excessive pride in history but refuses to move along to the modern future. Times have since changed and India is close to becoming a a superpower, however, this old India cannot be forgotten.

Reading this book will embitter anyone who romanticized India while ignoring its flaws and fallacies.

I started this book expecting to enjoy it for the same reasons other readers had criticized it: Naipaul's "negativity" and his willingness to question a culture that's not his own. I do believe that an outsider can, under the right circumstances, offer a valuable perspective on a foreign country. Unfortunately, as he acknowledges in the introduction, Naipaul has a complex relationship with India that largely prevents him from treating it without bias or, it seems, anything other than smug hostility. "India is for me a difficult country. It isn't my home and cannot be my home; and yet I cannot reject it or be indifferent to it; I cannot travel only for the sights. I am at once too close and too far." This sounds to me like an older brother describing a sibling who he's bound to 'love' but can only feel contempt for, and what follows is an ugly book of cheap shots and bullying. Admittedly, some of Naipaul's criticism was simply over my head and required more than a casual knowledge of India to appreciate. While much of it sounds like it could be valid, he continuously undercuts it with cringe-inducing generalizations such as "the inadequacy of every Indian's idea of India." There are some worthwhile passages, less tainted with bitterness—his meeting with a village leader, his reading of Gandhi's autobiography—but these require more effort than most readers will be willing to give. I don't fault Naipaul for his personal feelings about India, I just don't want to read about them. In the end, I felt the book had given me such a distorted picture of the country, as it was in the mid-1970s, that I was left with more questions than I had before reading it.

Oh, my gosh, this book was just continuous negativity. There's no let up; he just complains about what is wrong with India, but he offers no solution. Drove me crazy.

Naipaul takes freedom in expressing his point of contention, critically analyzing the the elements of Indian civilization. True ! The civilizations get wounded in the process of evolution but these emerge every time with new ideas, new concepts and perceptions. Truth, Non violence, Yoga, Ayurveda, Meditation, Middle Path, salvation of soul, self realization from inner peace and immunity from ailments are few basic elements unfolded in evolutionary process of Indian civilization are massively being followed up in the new normal world order. Naipauls has every right to raise objections about what is wrong with a civilization had been so much wounded since a millennium. But his dissidence does not speak about many facets of strengths of Indian civilization. Naipaul has his own unique way of building his own perceptive narration of facts of history remained buried and undisclosed. He gives a thought to a problem taking a reader to the root of genesis which remained invisible and obscure for a long time, by telling few real time stories he encountered allowing the events and persons to speak of their own with inherent irony.

This book could not grip my imagination, even the style of writing was not impressive

I confess that I found this book challenging to comment on; I was confused by Naipul's construction of the book he organised the book it into many themes particularly the first part that took place in Khasmir. That area had so little to do with India he explored in the remainder of his fascinating autobiography.

Having offered that disclaimer, I was thoroughly enamoured of the remainder: with his different insights into the Indian culture and society that he sometimes sought out and at other times just fell into accidentally. I am trying to remember specifics, but I am an old man whose memory is flying past so quickly that I feel the air moving against my face. However, I do remember those endearing passages regarding his visit to his grandfather’s village; the problematic relationship with his Turbaned Sikhs companion; his many fascinating descriptions of the varied people he encountered throughout his Indian journey.

Naipaul’s return visit to his biological homeland if not his actual homeland providers innumerable insights into fascinating countries of many aspects. I urge any reader with a broad interest in Indian society to obtain a copy.

It's difficult to objectively evaluate this book as my personal experience is limited and my knowledge may be biased. But overall VSN's deep observation impressed me remarkably. It is especially impressive in a time of Modi, pandemic, Hindu nationalism, and mass farmer's strike. It might be outdated in regard to the political condition of India, as the book was written 45 years ago, its attempt to capture the India mentality however, is striking.

Naipaul at his best. Extremely perceptive and witty. Resenting India was a way to better her. It captures the wound created by a lack of ideology at the time of independence. He believes that the old india dominated by magic, Karma and caste has to be buried. We need to industrialize and become an individual in our right. It shouldn't be a petty imitation of the west, but our own indian sensibility shaping our vision. He calls for a new renaissance.
A renaissance is indeed the need of the hour where we create institutions rooted in the masses, taking into account our own cultural and material realities. India can indeed think about solidarity and collaboration with other African nations to create a egalitarian universe instead of imitating the western democracies. Probably climate change can be addressed by decentralized local models instead of mega parks.

Devastating in its gaze and judgement, A Wounded Civilization doesn't feel like the slim little book it is. It feels like something older. It took me time to read, because I didn't have the mental strength this book demands of a reader, at least not all at once, and especially from an Indian.

Have I made sense of all that is in there? No. Not really. It demands a reread, especially with all my notes and scribbles on its margins. And when I do, perhaps I will know how to respond.

For now, the 'wow' I wrote with my pencil at the end of the book is enough.

Arrogant, judgemental, a man-child knocked crazy by his first experience of India like a “westerner” with no sensibility of being Indian — but like a child honest in his observations and experiences. He makes one cringe by his arrogant judgements (Indians can’t make cheese therefore are lacking skills), inanely puerile broad characterizations of Indians by juxtaposing historical figures with fictional characters (Gandhi with Acharya a brahmin protagonist in novel Samskara), and yet wonderfully frank sharing of conversations with street vendors almost jingoistic pride in Indian’s heritage and history.

Have to read for academic reasons and a good way to learn the biases of V.S. Naipaul himself but not to better understand a complex new nation called India.

È un'opera di complessa classificazione: non è integralmente un racconto di viaggio, per quanto il libro nasca in occasione di un viaggio compiuto da Naipaul in India negli anni '70, e per quanto vengano raccontate percezioni ed immagini catturate durante la visita; non è quasi sicuramente un saggio, mancando la coesione ed il rigore di un saggio ante litteram, presenti soltanto a sprazzi; a tratti sembra persino una raccolta di recensioni di opere di autori indiani da cui trarre testimonianze della decadenza indiana: e potrei continuare così ancora e ancora.
È insomma un po' un ammasso confusionario, dove tutti questi spezzoni di generi non si amalgamano e restano disuniti, in cui la voce di Naipaul riesce solo a tratti ad uniformare il tutto in un originale resoconto sulla decadenza della civiltà indiana durante l'epoca dell'Emergenza.
Oltre ciò, l'opera non mi ha convinto appieno per altri motivi: in primis, non sono riuscito ad entrare in piena sintonia col pensiero di Naipaul. A tratti l'ho trovato maledettamente poco empatico nei confronti degli intoccabili, l'ultimo e martoriato gradino del sistema castale indiano; a tratti tremendamente razzista (in certi casi vi sono addirittura mirabolanti descrizioni di razze, termine usato in continuazione dallo stesso Naipaul); in certi aspetti invece superficiale (specialmente nei confronti del movimento naxalita), certe volte non capace di perforare la coltre di una società che resta incomprensibile persino agli indiani stessi (Naipaul infatti non è indiano, è nato da figli di indiani nati e vissuti a Trinidad, per poi trasferirsi e vivere in Inghilterra): talvolta mi è sembrato che il rammarico provato nel racconto della sofferenza indiana non fosse proveniente dal cuore di un uomo, ma dal freddo cervello di un borghese.
Devo però riconoscere che qui e là sparsa per l'opera scintilla la penna dello scrittore "di razza" (sì, ormai sono anch'io plagiato) come nella descrizione della bidonville di Bombay, o del feudale sistema agricolo ancora vigente negli anni '70, o nei pungenti ritratti di Gandhi e ancora di più di Bhave, il successore designato di e da Gandhi, descritto in tono provocatorio e brillante.
L'incertezza di quest'opera secondo me si evince soprattutto dalla chiave di lettura che Naipaul dà della decadenza indiana: da una parte l'aprioristica accettazione di modelli e strutture sociali e comportamentali occidentali, completamente avulse dal pensiero indiano; dall'altra, la presenza ancora ingombrante di una religione che nei suoi aspetti quotidiani risulta spesso fanatica, ancorata a rituali magici e sciamani, a credenze che definire medievali sarebbe riduttivo (come nella necessità religiosa di continuare ad usare il carro trainato da buoi per la lavorazione dei campi piuttosto che le macchine a motore...). In questo binomio Naipaul secondo me non riesce a fornire una sintesi, resta incerto in discorsi astratti e nuvolosi.