Moscow: Bustard Publ., 2010, 544 p., ill., kart.

This is not just another book on the history of India, but perhaps the best (at least in Russian Indology) book that combines the originality and persuasiveness of a scientific analysis of a research monograph with the advantages and a certain standard of a textbook. Using the excellent knowledge of Indological literature (both domestic and foreign), the authors added to this knowledge their own vision of Indian history, based largely on their own research.

The book opens with a clear, succinct introduction, which makes it possible not to explain the geographical and ethno-linguistic realities in the course of further presentation. It briefly (but for a history textbook more than exhaustively) outlines the geographical position of India, its historical borders, the origin of the word "India" itself, and most importantly describes the country's regions: geography, types of economy, peoples and their languages.

Chapters 1-5 are devoted to the ancient history of India (by A. A. Vigasin). Starting with chapter 1, " The First Civilization (3000-1500 BC)", the author follows his own reading of the ancient history of India, focusing on the really important, in his opinion, subjects and concepts, strictly adhering to the reliance on existing sources.

The sections of the chapter on culture (art, mythology, writing) are very interesting and easy to write. A convincing thesis is that some features of later Hinduism can be explained not only by typological similarity with the Harappan religion, but also by the continuity of cultures. Concluding this chapter, the author writes that the valley civilization of India was one of the foundations of classical Indian culture, but the paradox is that "the noted connections can be traced mainly only between the Harappan culture and the culture of a much later era. On the contrary, the sources on which the description of the period immediately succeeding the Indian civilization is based practically do not give grounds for comparison" (p.27).

Chapter 2, "The Age of the Vedas (1500-500 BC)" is based on the "from source to history" model1. "In the beginning was the Word" ... - these were the Vedas and the Brahmanical prose that adjoins them. The author analyzes the language and chronology of the Vedas, leaving the controversial problem of the ancestral homeland of Indo-European speakers, focusing on the formation of Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan communities. He emphasizes that starting from the second half of the 2nd millennium BC (the time of the Rig Veda-XV - X centuries BC) up to the middle of the 1st millennium BC. literary monuments of huge volume become sources, whereas archaeological evidence is scanty and uncertain. And quite logically, the story of the Vedic era begins with the religious beliefs of the Indo-Aryans: "Only an analysis of the Vedic spiritual culture makes it possible to present the nature of economic and social relations of that time" (p. 32).

When turning to the analysis of the economy, everyday life, and Indo-Aryan society itself, the author focuses on the characteristics of the Varna system, i.e., the division of Late Vedic society into four varnas: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras. It is a legitimate position that it was in the process of developing the Ganges Valley (originally Indo-Aryans settled Northwestern India) that the ancient Indian civilization was formed and a new ethnic community was formed, the basis of which were those freemen who "adhered to Vedic customs, revered Brahmins and sacrificed to the gods on altars. The rest were classified as sudras or barbarians (mlecchas)."

Chapter 3, "The Early Historical Period (500-200 BCE)," also begins with religious and spiritual changes - the emergence of Buddhism (and Jainism). And here is my, perhaps, only-

1 This is exactly what the author of the chapter called his monograph (A. L. Vigasin. Ancient India. From Source to History, Moscow, 2007), which largely became the basis of his chapters in this textbook.

page 184
significant discrepancy with the author. He speaks of the emergence of" early states " in the first half of the 1st millennium BC (p.68). However, it seems to me that we can talk more about proto-states, or polities. The author himself refers to the rulers of the first half of the 1st millennium BC as "tribal kings" who relied on the emerging administrative apparatus (p. 82). A. A. Vigasin believes (and, in my opinion, quite rightly) that in the IV-V centuries. Even in the Gupta empire (late antiquity), there was no centralized bureaucracy (p. 142). As for the largest power of the early historical period, the Mauryan state, according to A. A. Vigasin, its structure "was generally extremely decentralized: in some regions local dynasties or sanghas ruled", and in vast territories "the population continued to live in a tribal system" (p. 99).

Starting with chapters 4, "The period of classical Antiquity (200 BC-300 AD)" and 5, " The Period of Late Antiquity (300-500 AD)", the political history of the country becomes more tangible.

The main thing in these chapters is the characteristic of the varno-caste system, the community, the categories of the population, and, of course, that without which the history of ancient India is simply incomprehensible-religious life. After briefly describing a new trend in Buddhism - Mahayana, which brought Buddhism closer to traditional religions, A. A. Vigasin focuses on Hinduism, which determines both the further development of the Vedic-Brahman religion and folk beliefs and cults. The author clearly formulates the significance of the close connection between the religious and social foundations of ancient Indian society: "The caste system sanctified by the Hindu religion ensured the stability of society, the ability to resist any foreign influence, but it also, in the end, gave the social system an extremely conservative character" (p.124).

The author, in my opinion, is absolutely right when he believes that culture (like spirit) breathes where it wants. He disagrees with those historians (including Indian ones) who believe that the periods of flourishing of the culture of ancient India coincide with the time of its imperial unity and military power. A. A. Vigasin writes that it is classical antiquity that coincides with the "dark era", that the latter was the era of flourishing of urban crafts and trade, that It was during this era that the Ganges Valley civilization spread throughout South Asia. Monumental architectural complexes (Bharkhut, Sanchi, Amaravati), the Gandhara and Mathura schools of fine arts, the design of the Buddhist canon and the great epic poems "Mahabharata" and "Ramayana", the appearance of "Panchatantra" and the creation of shastras, works of a normative nature, and the most famous of them, "Arthashastra Kautilya" - all this applies to the legacy of the "dark ages". And the heyday of the ancient Indian economy falls on the same "dark ages": high-quality steel is smelted, fortresses are built of stone and brick, coins are minted, domestic and international trade flourishes.

As for the author's description of the socio-economic system of ancient India, A. A. Vigasin decided not to clutter the heads of students (and I absolutely agree with him) He did not argue about slave-owning or "Asian" modes of production, nor did he refute the formative or accept the civilizational model of society's development. Instead, using existing sources, he focused on what he (and other textbook authors) think is really important: the Jajmani community and system, and the peculiarities of the caste system in the new conditions of classical and late antiquity. Slavery is present, but as an auxiliary element.

Chapters 6-10 cover the medieval and modern history of India (by L. B. Alaev). In chapter 6, " India in the Early Middle Ages (500-1200)", the author defines the social system of India at that time. He considers it feudal, drawing attention to the fact that the beginning of the formation of medieval society took place already in the Gupta era, as evidenced, in particular, by the emergence of the practice of donating villages and lands (p.153). Putting forward the thesis about the feudalization of Indian society, L. B. Alaev draws the attention of students (and readers in general) to two phenomena that echo what happened in Europe around the same era: the "naturalization" of the economy and the decline of cities, i.e., the agrarization of society, and the invasion of the Hephthalites (white Huns), in essence, one of the waves of the Great Migration of peoples.

Despite the difficulties of source studies and the kaleidoscopic nature of political history (in the V-VII centuries there were about 50 different political entities in India), L. B. Alaev managed not only to place the necessary accents, but also to write a readable chapter about the period of the VI-XII centuries, which in many Indian histories (perhaps in most) is mastered with effort. In each of the three parts of India (North, Deccan, and South), he identifies the centers of political entities - the Ganges Basin and Gujarat, respectively, and the Western Deccan and Tamil Nadu. Special attention is paid to the Rajput period in Northern India, with which L. B. Alaev connects the appearance of something similar to the "system".

page 185
a vassalage system that existed in Western Europe around the same time." According to the author, a peculiar system of vassalage appears under the rule of the Rajputs, and one can speak of the emergence of a feudal structure of the ruling class (p.169).

The story of the Dravidian South of India, so dear to the author's heart, also appears. In the center is the history of Tamil Nadu, which was influenced by both the northern Sanskrit-Brahmin culture and the ancient culture that came through the Arabian Sea. One of the most remarkable features of Tamil Nadu's pre-VI century history has not been forgotten. its mystique. Indeed, the exquisite old Tamil poetry, which features states, large cities, and complex social systems," according to modern ideas", belongs to the II-III centuries. Genealogies trace the origins of the major Tamil dynasties of Chola, Pandya, and Chera-from the second century. At the same time, there are no inscriptions, archaeological data do not confirm the existence of developed states at that time; the time of decline (III-VI centuries) associated with the invasion of Tamil Nadu by the mysterious Kallabhra tribe also has no documentary evidence.

Summing up his analysis of early medieval Indian society, L. B. Alaev writes: "It seems that the Indian states of the VII-X centuries were "arranged" quite simply. North India was dominated by several clans of paramilitary landowners who considered themselves the heirs of the ancient Kshatriyas, members of royal families (Rajputs), who despised everything but military glory and honor. In South India, too, the political system was largely based on broad associations of high-caste landowners" (p. 169). It is in this chapter that the character of one of the foundations of medieval India, the community, is most fully revealed.

The Indian Middle Ages culminate in the era of Muslim domination, which is covered in chapters 7 "The Period of the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526) "and 8" The Mughal Empire (1526-1707)". The political history of the sultanate is very clear and, I would say, elegantly written. It is well shown how, from dynasty to dynasty, the military regime of the Turkic-speaking ethnic group gradually gave way to the beginning of the regular-administrative one, which was conducted by Shiite Muslims and Iranians in terms of language. In parallel to this process, the sultanate's policy towards Hindus is changing-from religious intolerance to establishing contacts with the top of Hindu society. The author believes that it is at this time that a kind of "Indian Islam" appears.

L. B. Alaev believes that it is during the Delhi Sultanate, during the era of dynamic economic growth (urbanization, development of commodity-money relations, relations with the Middle East) that "a new form of statehood is being developed, combining bureaucratic and military-feudal features. Typologically, the state remained an eastern despotism, but its character changed. The Hindu states of the pre-Muslim period can be called patrimonial despotisms, when subjects are considered as servants, children, younger brothers of the sovereign, and Muslim states are military despotisms, in which subjects, including the highest-ranking ones, are considered as slaves" (p.189).

Mughal India is represented by a narrative of political history grouped around two of the most famous and extraordinary rulers, Akbar and Aurangzeb. The first of them became the "true creator of the Mughal Empire". Another outstanding and talented ruler, an ascetic and a man of great diligence, under whom the empire occupied almost the entire South Asian subcontinent and even part of Afghanistan, failed in his endeavors, and his death marked the beginning of the end of the empire. The author describes Aurangzeb as "one of the most tragic figures in the history of India" (p.214).

L. B. Alaev's categorical thesis raises some doubts: "Eastern empires can exist only by constantly expanding" (p. 214). This thesis, for example, hardly applies to China (also East). Perhaps this statement applies to military-feudal empires, and not to bureaucratic ones? The author insists that the Mughal state "cannot be considered a bureaucratic state in the exact sense of the word... This is not a bureaucratic, but a feudal way of government " (pp. 222-223).

The new history of India is given two chapters in the textbook, also written by L. B. Alaev: chapter 9 " The Collapse of the Mughal Empire. India under the rule of the English East India Company (1757-1858)" and chapter 10 " India under the rule of the British Crown (mid-19th and early 20th centuries)". The author managed to fit a huge amount of material into two chapters, clearly structure it, and express his balanced attitude to the positive and negative aspects of the conquest.

The section on the initial period of European trade in India, which precedes chapters on Modern History proper, is well written. I would like to draw your attention to two theses of the author: 1) participation (and even attempts at monopolization) in inter-Asian trade by Europeans, starting with the Portuguese, and 2) co-operation with the Portuguese.-

page 186
European merchants with local trading capital and the patronage of the first local authorities. This destroys the still-current myth that Europeans in India (and in other Eastern countries) acted exclusively by force from the very beginning.

Speaking about the economic policy of Great Britain, the author draws attention to the fact that, contrary to the usual stereotype, India at that time, although it became to some extent a source of raw materials for British textile factories and a market for British goods, but "on the whole, its economy continues to exist independently" (p.258). After that, the author proceeds to administrative, legal, social and educational reforms, which together laid the foundations for the changes that took place in Indian society already in the second half of the XIX century. The analysis of British policy concludes with a review of agrarian reforms. Author's output: "At the first stage of agrarian transformation, the historical merit of the British was that they destroyed the upper layer of land owners - those who previously appropriated tax from grassroots owners. This process took place slowly and was not completely completed, but as a result, the land was mostly owned by those who pay taxes" (p.266).

The section on spiritual changes focuses primarily on Hindu religious reform and enlightenment, which was founded by Rammohan Rai. A surprise for me in this section was the figure unknown to me (I hope not for Indologists) Henry Derosio, who founded the Young Bengal circle, which became the forerunner of the development of civil nationalism.

The chapter ends with the section "Sepoy Uprising". Here I have some comments. First, why "sepoy" if there is a more appropriate name for the movement - Indian Popular Uprising? L. B. Alaev writes: "The Sepoy Rebellion (1857-1859) is also called the Indian Popular Uprising" (p.268). In my opinion, rather the opposite. Moreover, when talking about the causes of the uprising, the author absolutely accurately lists those that explain the participation of the broadest social strata in the uprising, even if not the whole of India. After listing these reasons, he writes: "To all this was added (emphasis added - V. T.) discontent in the Sepoy troops" (p. 269). Secondly, it seems that the author gave too little information about the actual course of the uprising. By way of comparison, the "Indian Wahhabis" movement, which is clearly less significant, received quite decent coverage in the chapter (pp. 259-261). Third, the description of the uprising is downright political correctness of today: although both sides, both the Indians and the British, acted with extraordinary brutality, can you put on the same level those who came to the country and enslaved it, and those who were robbed and raped and rebelled against the oppressors?

It seems very successful to cover the final stage of the country's New History. It contains material on the final formation of the political image of the colony, i.e. the definition of its borders in the north-west (Afghanistan) and east (Burma). This is followed by an analysis of the country's economic development. Here I would like to draw attention to the author's vision of a number of problems, with which not everyone will agree. Thus, L. B. Alaev argues that, despite India's close attachment to Western markets (60% of exports and 80% of imports), "the Indian economy remained generally closed, self-sufficient", foreign trade did not play a serious role, and therefore "it cannot be said that the colonialists managed to turn India into an agricultural and raw material market an appendage of the metropolis " (p. 281).

The article considers the reforms (military, administrative, judicial, educational, agricultural), which L. B. Alaev rightly considers a new stage of colonial policy (although for some reason the military reform was included in the" economic " section of the chapter).

Coverage of religious reform movements in Hinduism (the activities of Dayananda Saraswati, Ramakrishna, and especially Vivekananda), Islam (primarily Sayyid Ahmad Khan, but also the Deoband fundamentalists and Ahmad Kadiyani), Sikhism, Parsiism (Dadabhai Naoroji), and secular nationalism and the formation of national consciousness is central. Interesting (and fair) is the author's assessment of the role of the Theosophical Society headed by Elena Blavatsky (p. 297), whose activities in our literature have traditionally been regarded in general negatively. Two fundamental conclusions concerning religious reformism deserve attention: 1) although the Hindu reformers sought to unite all Indians, "objectively, they contributed to the division of Indian society, "repelling" Indian Muslims " (p. 293); 2) "in the East, the fusion of reform and enlightenment ideas led to the subordination of rationalism to theology" and the eventual predominance of religious fundamentalism (p.298-299).

page 187
L. B. Alaev shows the Indian specifics of secular nationalism. The Indian national bourgeoisie, which emerged in the early 19th century, emerged as "a very narrow stratum consisting mainly of representatives of three ethno-confessional communities: the Marwari (Jains) and the Gujarati Banya (Hindus) and the Parsis. In most parts of India, this national bourgeoisie was perceived as foreign " (p.298). As for the colonial intelligentsia, "it consisted mainly of representatives of the higher castes (primarily Brahmins) and was largely isolated from the people" (p.298).

The beginning of the first stage in the formation of pan-Indian nationalism in the textbook is attributed to 1851-1852, when the new Law on the Government of India was prepared. The author attributes the beginning of the next stage in the development of the national movement to 1875, when the Indian League appeared - the first all-Bengali political organization, and after it - the Indian Association (1876), headed by Surendranath Banerjee, highly appreciated in the textbook (p.303).

In 1885, an all - India political organization, the Indian National Congress (INC), was formed on the basis of Bengal, Bombay and Madras organizations. L. B. Alaev writes: "It remains debatable what role the annual congresses of the Theosophical Society played in the emergence of the Congress, at which thinking Indians met and discussed common problems" (p. 305).. According to one of the versions (which, as it seems to me, judging by the text, the author adheres to), it was during one of these congresses in Madras (1884) that it was decided to convene the INC. in December 1885. "Modern Indian historians do not agree with this version... However, there is no doubt that the organizer of the event, which was called the First Congress of the Indian National Congress, was a prominent theosophist A. Hume, " writes L. B. Alaev (p. 305).

Describing the activities of the INC at the end of the 19th century, the author emphasizes its elitist nature and the sincere blindness of the INC leaders (almost exclusively Hindus) on the problems of Muslim and anti-Brahmin movements. Indian liberals "believed in the good intentions of the British government towards India and were convinced that the grimaces of colonial rule were due solely to the fact that the authorities in the mother country simply did not understand the problems that India was facing" (p.309).

All this was clearly shown under the Viceroy Lord George Curzon (1899-1905), whose reign and personality are described in the book in a new light. Noting the positive aspects of Curzon's rule (which had not been done before in Russian Indology), L. B. Alaev writes with good reason that "Curzon's policy was a hundred years too late", because now the Indian elite took the benefits of British rule for granted and believed that it was quite ripe for governing, even under the auspices of Great Britain. The result of Curzon's division of Bengal into two provinces - West and East Bengal-was the struggle for the abolition of the reform, which took on a massive character, as well as the beginning of a political confrontation between Hindus and Muslims.

The undoubted advantage of the chapter is the author's desire to show the complex nature of socio-political movements, not limited to analyzing the activities of the Congress.

A very interesting section is about the anti-Brahmin movement, which has complicated the picture in the context of caste disunity in Indian society. L. B. Alaev gave a clear and precise explanation of this: "Because the colonial power was based on the Brahmins... the anti-Brahmin movement had some anti-colonial potential. But when it became clear that the national liberation movement was also led mainly by Brahmins, the success of this movement began to be perceived by anti-Brahmin forces as a future victory for the Brahmins and the preservation of all the "charms" of caste oppression in free India" (p.320).

Summing up, L. B. Alaev notes that in 1908-1914 there was a consolidation of the colonial regime, achieved both through repression against extreme trends of nationalism, and as a result of some concessions by the authorities (the Morley-Minto reform, criticism of the anti-Indian Immigration Law in South Africa, the abolition of the partition of Bengal). But at the same time there was a consolidation of the liberation movement: the convergence of the program guidelines of the Congress and the Muslim League (granting India dominion status), the rejection of violent methods of struggle by the" extreme "in the INC, and the acceptance by the" moderate " of the significance of mass movements.

A. L. Safronova's presentation of the Modern History of India takes 11-16 chapters of the textbook. Two of them (11 and 12) They are dedicated to the 25-year period (1914-1939) - from the eve of the First World War to the eve of the Second. In both chapters, the author has highlighted key issues, focusing on the actual civil history. The main thread through the chapters is the consideration of three main problems of Indian history of that 25th anniversary. First of all, it is a national liberation movement.

page 188
the movement in its many-sided and peculiar forms in the conditions of a caste, multi-confessional and multinational country.

A. L. Safronova, noting the uneven development of individual regions, the multi-layered economy, the different timing of involvement in the political process of various groups of the population, a significant proportion of marginal strata, reasonably believes that the Congress was gradually transformed from "an association of the national elite to an organization representing the interests of the entire population of the country" and " prerequisites were created for unification within a single the national liberation movement of "moderate" nationalists and supporters of mass anti-colonial actions" (p. 333). In the center is the figure of M. K. Gandhi, whose teachings and activities are clearly (but not simplistically) presented by A. L. Safronova: the principle of nonviolence, the tactics of nonviolent struggle for independence (satyagraha) in the forms of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, the desire to resolve individual conflicts with the British authorities, as well as social contradictions on the basis of consensus, religious and religiousGandhi's philosophical views, his image. As a result, the author notes, Gandhi "managed to develop and justify a political model in which anti-colonial protest was introduced into the idea of a constitutional dialogue between the authorities and the local elite," to strengthen the consolidation of various strata of the politicized elite of Indian society, combining the ideology of liberals and radicals, as well as to express the interests of the widest strata (pp. 360-361).

The struggle within the INC, the splits in this organization (Swaraj and Nationalist Party), the nature of the factions (Congress-Socialist Party) are well reflected. Unfortunately, civil disobedience campaigns, i.e. mass actions, have not been so successful. While the 1930 campaign that outlawed INC. received satisfactory coverage, the more dramatic first all-India campaign (1920-1922) is given only six lines (p.365).

A. L. Safronova considers organizations of the Muslim community to be the next most important component of the national movement. She notes that "there is a common pattern in the actions of the politicized part of the Hindu and Muslim communities: representatives of the moderate (centrist) trend in the Congress and the League supported the secular direction of their political activities, while the right-wing conservatives and left-wing radicals talked about introducing a religious idea into politics" (p.341). The author quite reasonably believes that the mutual rejection of Gandhi and Jinnah was one of the reasons for the deterioration of relations between the Congress and the League, although there was a deeper reason: "While the Congress sought mass support for its activities by the entire population of British India, the leaders of the League sought to gain popularity exclusively within their community" (p. 344). The evolution of the League is well traced: from the "Delhi Proposals" of 1927 (rapprochement with the Congress provided a number of guarantees) to the promotion of the idea of Muslim statehood and non-cooperation with the INC in 1937-1938.

The absolute advantage of the author of the section is to demonstrate the diversity of the national movement, and not to reduce it exclusively to the Hindu-Muslim confrontation, which was rapidly gaining momentum. A. L. Safronova not only mentioned, but also managed to fully describe such phenomena as the actions of members of the lower castes and "untouchables" for their rights, movements for self-determination in Bengal, Andhra and Maharashtra, Sikh ethno-confessionalism, the caliphate movement, left-wing radical movements (including the creation of the Indian Communist Party), and the peculiarities of Hindu confessional movements. organizations.

The second cross-cutting problem of both chapters - the political reforms of the British authorities and the attitude of the main political forces towards them, the Indian Government Act of 1919 ("Montagu-Chelmsford Reform") - is generally viewed positively by the author: "For all its limitations, the reform was a step forward in the process of establishing constitutional statehood. It led to a weakening of the colonial administration's control over political life in the provinces " (pp. 357-358). The new Indian Government Act (Constitution of 1935), despite its very moderate nature, was "important for the development of Indian democratic institutions", which "objectively led to the strengthening of groups in the INC focused on constitutional forms of struggle for the country's sovereignty" (p.384). When describing the activities of congressional provincial governments, it is very important to note in the textbook that there are two trends in the INC on the issue of economic strategy in the present and future: the supporters of J. P. Morgan. Nehru (centrists and leftists) They were in favor of state regulation of the economy, agrarian reform and social programs, while the right-wingers, led by Vallabhbhai Patel, were in favor of free development of the market economy and capitalist development of the village.

page 189
It seems important and natural to pay sufficient attention to the third cross-cutting theme-the place and role of princedoms in the political life of India, because in the minds of non-specialists, India in the era of the British Raj is drawn as a homogeneous colony, which in reality it was not. A. L. Safronova introduces the reader to the concept of "Indian principality", examines the types of principalities, the geographical location of The author examines the protocol and ritual of relations with the British authorities, the system of governance of the principalities, and concludes that the princes (both Hindu and Muslim) were allies of the British Empire and opponents of the country's independence, since "the idea of national liberation struggle was interpreted in the principalities as the loss of their unique status and falling under the dictates of the Indian National Congress party" (p. 356).

Chapter 13, "The Final Stage of India's Struggle for Independence," covers the years of World War II and the country's first post-war years. The most interesting sections are those on constitutional projects (the proposals of the Cripps Mission, the Wavell Plan, three declarations of the Labor government), as well as those devoted to the activities of nationalists during the war and the consequences of dividing the country according to the religious and communal principle. Unfortunately, nothing is said about mass actions after the end of the war, or it is said in patter, as when referring to protests against the trials of soldiers of the Indian National Army who fought on the side of the Japanese (p. 403).

It seems that the end of the chapter is somewhat illogical: the section on Indian culture in the first half of the twentieth century (it deals mainly with literature), breaks down the essentially homogeneous sections on the formation of the political systems of India and Pakistan and on the formation of the political consciousness of the peoples of Hindustan.

Chapters 14, "The Emergence of India's Sovereign Statehood", 15, "The State and Parties at the End of the 20th Century", and 16, "India at the Beginning of the 21st Century" reflect almost all the main themes and problems of Indian history during this period: the choice of the path of political and socio-economic development of the country, the Nehru course, and the reforms of 1940-1950-political crises of the late 1970s-early 21st century, ethno-confessional and caste problems, economic reforms of the 1990s, evolution of the party-political system, foreign policy. In general, these chapters give a fairly adequate idea of the main features of the country's historical development during this period.

It seems, however, that these chapters create a certain bias from history towards political science: too much attention (for a history textbook) is devoted to the creation and disintegration of an infinite number of parties, whose names, due to their multiplicity, will be difficult for a student (and even a non-indologist) to remember, almost like the names of Indian states in the early Medieval era.

In these (and previous) chapters, much attention is paid to the establishment and development of parliamentary democracy, which is quite true: among the Eastern countries, India is perhaps the most democratic and prosperous (in terms of resolving internal contradictions) country. Perhaps, without going into details, we should have drawn the reader's attention to the realities hidden under the Westminster model of India's political system?

In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to the "auxiliary" part of the textbook: a well-thought-out list of recommended literature, chronological tables that include the chronological table itself (from the XXIV century BC to 2009), a list of state leaders (from 1947 to the present) and a list of the most important political and public figures of India from the XX beginning of the XXI B.

The maps are very good (you should have given a page-by-page list of them in the table of contents) and the illustrations are overwhelmingly thoughtful and relevant. And one last thing. An excellent (and groundbreaking) idea, especially for a history textbook on a non-European country: the emphasis is placed on names, terms, geographical names (only now I realized that I had mispronounced a good half of them all my life).

A beautiful book. It's just a pity that the publisher was stingy and released it on paper, to put it mildly, not of the first class.

page 190

Permanent link to this publication: