Another India: Rethinking Muslim Politics in Postcolonial India

A Book Review of Another India: The Making of the World’s Largest Muslim Minority, 1947-77 (2023) by Pratinav Anil

The dominant stories we have inherited about Muslims in independent India often portray them as a single, passive community living under a benevolent, secular state. Many people believe that the Nehru years were a golden age for minorities, a time when secularism and tolerance gave Muslims both dignity and protection. Pratinav Anil, a historian of postcolonial India, disagrees with this story in his book Another India: The Making of the World’s Largest Muslim Minority, 1947–77. Using a wide range of documents, government records, newspapers, and letters, he argues that Muslims in post-1947 India were not as secure as popular memory would suggest. Instead, their lives were shaped by silence, marginalisation, and very limited space to speak politically.

The book’s main point is straightforward: the Congress Party and the Indian state did not truly protect Muslims. What they offered was a narrow kind of secularism, wherein Muslims were allowed to keep some cultural practices, language, personal law, and eating habits, but only if they remained politically quiet. When Muslims asked for equality, fair representation, or economic justice, their demands were deemed ‘communal’ or even ‘anti-national.’ This arrangement, which Anil calls ‘Congress secularism,’ looked generous on the surface but was actually a way of keeping Muslims in a subordinate position.

Rethinking the Nehruvian Consensus

One of the most important contributions of the book is how it questions what many call the “Nehruvian consensus”—the belief that Nehru’s idea of secular nationalism gave Muslims protection against Hindu majority pressure. Historians like Mushirul Hasan¹ and thinkers like Amartya Sen² have supported this view, saying that the Congress created at least a fragile form of secularism. Anil strongly disagrees. This so-called ‘protection’ was in fact deeply paternalistic. The state defined what counted as acceptable Muslim identity, rewarding cultural loyalty while punishing political assertion. In other words, Muslims could exist as a community but not as citizens with claims on the republic. This argument is significant, by showing that the much-praised secularism of the early Indian state was not open and equal, but conditional. It also explains why Muslims, despite being a large population, remained politically weak, economically poor, and socially insecure in the first decades after independence. According to Anil, this weakness was not accidental but built into the very structure of India’s post-1947 settlement.³

Mapping Muslim Politics: Nationalists, Communalists, Notables

Anil divides his book into three parts: Nationalists, Communalists, and Notables. This structure allows him to show that Muslim politics after independence was not one single story but a mix of very different voices and approaches.

The first group, the ‘nationalist Muslims,’ included leaders like Maulana Azad, Syed Mahmud, and Humayun Kabir. These figures believed that joining hands with the Congress was the only safe path for Muslims after Partition. Their politics was shaped by guilt, fear of Hindu reaction, and a hope that loyalty would secure protection. 

But this came at a cost. By avoiding demands for equality or representation, they ended up reinforcing the idea that Muslims had no right to speak as a community.

The second group, the so-called ‘communalists,’ included the Jama’at-i-Islami and regional Muslim parties, especially in places like Kerala and Hyderabad. Historians usually dismiss them as narrow-minded or divisive. Anil offers a different reading. He shows that these groups had their own coherent ideas about Muslim rights, cultural preservation, and legal safeguards.⁴ They were sidelined, but their presence reveals that Muslims were not silent or passive.

The final group, the ‘notables,’ were the Ashraf elites, landlords, waqf trustees, academics, who claimed to represent Muslims but mainly defended their own class interests. Anil’s idea of ‘Ashraf betrayal’ is powerful and provocative. It exposes how upper-caste Muslims dominated leadership while poorer and lower-caste Muslims were ignored. This argument is especially significant because it reminds us that caste and class also shape Muslim society.⁵

One of the book’s strong points is its focus on Muslim agency. Too often, Muslims are described only as victims of majority politics or as passive dependents of the state. Anil refuses both views. He shows Muslims as active players who fought for rights through courts, universities, elections, and movements.

For example, struggles around Urdu, Muslim Personal Law, and Aligarh Muslim University show that Muslims were constantly negotiating with the state. After riots, the turn to ghettoisation was also a political choice, a way of survival and safety⁶. These examples underline that Muslims were not only reacting to oppression but also trying to build strategies for the future.

The book is bold and well-argued, but it is not without flaws. Sometimes, Anil’s tone is too harsh. He is right to criticise Nehru and Azad, but both figures did show genuine commitment to secular values at moments.⁷⁸ Azad, for instance, carried heavy personal burdens after Partition, and Nehru did resist certain communal demands, even if inconsistently. A more balanced treatment of their contributions would have strengthened his overall argument.

Another limitation is the focus on high politics. Because the book is centred on leaders, parties, and state institutions, it pays less attention to the everyday lives of ordinary Muslims. Topics like women’s activism, migration, cultural expression, and local-level resistance remain in the background.

Still, these limits do not take away from the book’s central achievement. Anil forces readers to confront uncomfortable truths about Indian secularism and minority politics.

Why this Book Matters Today

Perhaps the greatest strength of Another India is that it speaks directly to the present. Today, Muslims in India face open hostility, discrimination, and political invisibility. It is easy to think that this situation began only with the rise of the BJP or the demolition of Babri Masjid. Anil reminds us that the roots go much deeper. The expectation that Muslims must remain silent, respectable, and grateful in order to be tolerated has a long history. It began in the early decades of independence and continues today.⁹

This historical perspective is crucial. It tells us that the current crisis is not simply about one party or one leader. It is about deeper structures of exclusion that have existed since 1947. By exposing these roots, Anil pushes us to think critically about what kind of democracy India has been, and what it could become.

Another India is a difficult book, but that is exactly why it is valuable. It challenges myths about Nehruvian secularism, questions the role of Muslim elites, and exposes the limits of India’s political system. It shows Muslims not just as victims but as actors who tried to shape their destiny within harsh constraints.

For scholars, the book opens new debates about secularism, class, caste, and minority rights. For Muslims, it is a painful but honest reminder of why their struggles continue. For all readers, it is a warning that the crisis of democracy today has long roots in the past.

In the end, Anil’s work is not only history, but it is a mirror. It forces us to see the Republic more clearly, without illusions. It is courageous, deeply researched, and necessary reading for anyone concerned with India’s past, present, and future.

---

Disclaimer: Material published by Traversing Tradition is meant to foster scholarly inquiry and rich discussion. The views, opinions, beliefs, or strategies represented in published articles and subsequent comments do not necessarily represent the views of Traversing Tradition or any employee thereof.

Photo by Sylwia Bartyzel on Unsplash

Works Cited:

1. Hasan, M. (1997). Legacy of a Divided Nation: India’s Muslims since Independence. Boulder: Westview Press. [↩]
2. Sen, A. (2005). The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity. New Delhi: Penguin. [↩]
3. Brass, P. R. (1994). The Politics of India since Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [↩]
4. Robinson, F. (2000). Islam and Muslim History in South Asia. Delhi: Oxford University Press. [↩]
5. Ahmad, I. (2019). Caste and Social Stratification among Muslims in India. New Delhi: Manohar. [↩]
6. Zavos, J. (2001). The Emergence of Hindu Nationalism in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↩]
7. Gopal, P. (2010). Literary Radicalism in India: Gender, Nation and the Transition to Independence. London: Routledge. [↩]
8. Guha, R. (2007). India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy. New Delhi: Picador. [↩]
9. Jaffrelot, C. (2021). Modi’s India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [↩]