In the book, Bhãrat: India 2.0, the author, Gautam Desiraju, argues that Bhãrat will form the basis of the India of the future, India 2.0, and that our aspirational ideas will be feckless without realizing a civilizational state.
We have often come across the two words, Bhãrat and India, used to differentiate the two broad realities of the nation: the former focusing on the traditional, such as villages, farms, temples, and festivals, while the latter on the modern, such as cities, software companies, malls, airports, and elections. We generally assume Bhãrat as the precursor to the India of today, a sovereign democratic republic that is driven forward by the gift of its modern Constitution. In Bhãrat: India 2.0, the author, Gautam Desiraju, argues that Bhãrat, indeed, will form the basis of the India of the future, India 2.0, and that our aspirational ideas will be feckless without realizing a civilizational state.
The conflict between a constitutional state and a civilizational state forms much of the basis of Bhãrat: India 2.0. The chasm between the two Indias, so to speak, has been much discussed and debated by many but hardly has anyone provided a way forward that would bring them together. Desiraju deftly analyses the shortcomings of the Constitution, which he finds is “not sympathetic enough to the civilizational nature of Bhārat, that is India,” and at the same time eschews the temptation of throwing it out altogether. Does that mean that a civilizational state can be created using a constitutional framework? Desiraju argues that it could be, and it should be, and offers the novel solution of dividing the country into a number of smaller states—novel not because of the division itself as demands for statehood have existed for decades in many regions, but because of the reason for the division that we will get into soon.
The first half of the book, titled India 1.0, is a well-researched summary of the interesting and long history of the Constitution, the arguments and counter-arguments in the Constituent Assembly, how the macabre spectre of the Partition affected the starkly godless nature of the Constitution, and how the Constitution itself was inspired by previous versions and drafts as well as similar documents from other countries. Desiraju, in his critique of the Constitution, identifies concerns such as the absence of any mention of God, the dissociation from the 5,000-year-old Sanãtana Dharma, continuing conflicts between the Centre and the States, the need for Rajya Sabha, and the failure to address the upliftment of socially and economically backward classes. Desiraju does not hesitate to hold back in criticizing, cogently if not gently, anything related to the Constitution that he feels has not worked, from the hallowed status it enjoys in some circles to the basic structure doctrine that resulted from the Kesavananda Bharati case, and from the preferential treatment of religious minorities to the issues with caste-based reservations. Those were different times, he cautions, and “Today, one need neither look upon Gandhi and Ambedkar as gods nor regard the Constitution that they and others inspired and drafted as a holy book.”
In other words, like the true scientist that he is, he questions that if the intended outcomes have not been achieved then there should be something fundamentally wrong with the process itself. Incidentally, the scientist in him makes an appearance several times and this helps provide a different perspective, a clearer and simpler one rather, to the twisted constitutional problems. At one place he talks about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which deals with the progression from order to chaos, and contrasts it with the Law of Dharma, which is about maintaining order in the society. At another place, he says how a “certain energy of activation is required to acknowledge or admit that all was not well with the basic document itself and a further energy hill to climb if one were to attempt radical reform.” The distinction between a complicated system and a complex system, to take another instance, is an intriguing insight into the fundamental natures of the Constitution and Sanãtana Dharma.
The second half of the book, titled India 2.0, is the crux in which Desiraju proposes the novel model that India be split into 75 states, each with roughly the same population for reasons of administrative convenience rather than language, ethnicity, resources, or religion. To his credit, however, he demarcates the state boundaries based on historical reasons such as the earlier boundaries of princely states and existing demands for separate states to be carved out of larger ones. Desiraju argues that smaller states would result in better administration, truer federalism, a better economy, and fewer conflicts related to language and religion. Further, he believes that this could bring down the seditious demands that crop up now and then in some states as the Centre already has considerable powers in maintaining the integrity of the nation, and dealing with smaller states would be easier—no one state can hold the Centre to ransom. The fact that the word “gerrymander” is not used even once in the book despite a detailed discussion on reorganization of states only shows the sincerity with which Desiraju puts forth the idea. As ideas go, this is rather radical and even if Desiraju appeals “for discussion and non-emotional debate by the Indian public”, one can only imagine the emotional outrage that this could trigger given its sensitive nature. If this triggers a discussion at the right levels, however, the book would have served its purpose.
Underlying the idea, as well as much of the book, is the foundation of Sanãtana Dharma, which Desiraju defines broadly as the continuous civilizational heritage of India for more than 5,000 years. Using examples and excerpts from Vēdas, Upaniṣads, and other sources, he paints the picture of what the ancient civilization would have been: ideas of democracy and republicanism, laws of governance, maintenance of order, statecraft and diplomacy, and so on. The discussion naturally swerves to the definition of Hindu, Hinduism, and Hindutva, and Desiraju relies unapologetically on the words of Savarkar to consider these as more inclusivist and civilizational identities than religious ones. At times, the painting of sharp strokes of constitutional governance, economic growth, religious tolerance, and societal unity on the broad canvas of Sanãtana Dharma sounds exceedingly optimistic considering the current climate of polarization all around.
Overall, Desiraju must be commended for attempting what may seem an impossibly daunting task of taking the complex polity, society, and diversity of India and come up with a model that would serve robustly over the next 75 years. In a way, perhaps, his immense experience in dealing with complexity in his research work enabled him to find a workable solution to the problems facing India today through “cold, dispassionate analysis, model building and evaluation.” As he clearly states, the way forward is not by increments that we are used to but by a revolution, the Bhãratiya Revolution. Even if Bhãrat as the basis for the future of India is the main theme, Desiraju intersperses the book with unusual facets of history, and his own trenchant views on several issues such as how “Rutgers has no locus standi to dismantle anything in this country” and the amusing rationale behind the demarcation of Delhi make for a compelling reading. Bhãrat: India 2.0, in that sense, is a book that takes the current themes of galvanizing decolonisation and exploring new ideas of India towards a more pragmatic pedestal, a book that should not only be read by us all, but also, and especially, by politicians and policymakers.
Bhavesh Kansara is a technology enthusiast and an industry expert helping businesses adopt new technologies. When not solving engineering challenges, he indulges in his passion of limericks, short stories, and podcasting based on his observations on society and culture. He is also the author of “Twisted Threads”, a one-of-its-kind satire on contemporary Indian politics.