The Golden Age of the English-Reading Indian Middle Class
The
Unwritten Constitution: How a Shared Library Shaped India's Elite
An Odyssey in 4 parts - PART II of
IV
If one
wished to identify the single greatest beneficiary of the common bookshelf, it
would not be any individual author. It would be the English-reading Indian
middle class itself. Indeed, one could plausibly argue that the common
bookshelf did not merely reflect the rise of that class. It helped create it.
The
post-Independence middle class was, by global standards, an unusual social
formation. It was not primarily built upon inherited wealth. Nor was it driven
initially by private entrepreneurship. Instead, it emerged through education. Civil
servants. University professors. Scientists. Engineers. Doctors. Lawyers. Bank
officers. PSU executives. Teachers. Military officers. Public-sector managers. Researchers.
These professions differed enormously in income and prestige. Yet they shared
one important characteristic. English.
English
was the language through which they studied, worked, corresponded and imagined
professional advancement. Books therefore became much more than leisure. They
became markers of education itself. Owning books signalled seriousness. Reading
widely signalled cultivation. Quoting literature demonstrated intellectual
confidence.
The
English-speaking middle class was never numerically large relative to India's
population. Yet its influence far exceeded its numbers because it
disproportionately occupied positions within universities, the bureaucracy,
medicine, engineering, finance, journalism and the professions. It became one
of independent India's principal opinion-forming communities. And remarkably,
that community read many of the same books.
Reading as Social Capital
Modern discussions of reading often focus upon individual
pleasure. Earlier generations viewed reading somewhat differently. Reading was
also social. It enabled conversation. Friendship. Professional relationships. Courtship.
Mentorship.
A newly appointed lecturer joining a university department
could immediately discuss Christie or Wodehouse with colleagues. Young IAS
probationers arriving at Mussoorie often discovered overlapping literary
memories. Army officers transferred between regiments carried shared references
with them. Doctors waiting between surgeries exchanged books. Bank officers
recommended novels during transfers across states.
Books circulated through institutions long before ideas such
as "networking" entered everyday vocabulary. Robert Putnam's concept
of social capital is illuminating here. Communities function more
effectively when people possess reservoirs of shared trust, common experiences
and overlapping cultural references. The common bookshelf quietly generated
precisely this kind of social capital.
Knowing the same books reduced the distance between
strangers. A quotation from Jeeves was more than a joke. It was a signal. It
said: "We belong to the same conversation." That conversation
crossed regional boundaries with remarkable ease.
The Omnivorous Reader
Another feature distinguished this generation from today's
readers. They tended to be literary omnivores. The same individual might read
Bertrand Russell on philosophy, Arthur Hailey on business, Isaac Asimov on
science fiction, Agatha Christie on detective fiction and P. G. Wodehouse for
comic relief.
Genre boundaries existed. But they were surprisingly porous.
One rarely heard someone describe themselves exclusively as a "fantasy
reader" or a "crime reader." Reading itself mattered more than
category. Partly this reflected limited availability. Readers consumed whatever
good books they could obtain. Partly it reflected educational ideals. Breadth
was admired. To be "well read" implied range rather than
specialization.
Mortimer Adler famously described great books as
participants in "the great conversation." Many English-speaking
Indians unconsciously embraced precisely this ideal. A cultivated reader moved
comfortably between history, literature, philosophy, science and humour. Today's
algorithms encourage depth within niches.
Yesterday's libraries encouraged breadth across disciplines.
This difference is more significant than it first appears. A society of general
readers produces different public conversations from a society of specialized
readers.
The Slow Rhythm of Reading
The tempo of reading also differed profoundly. Books arrived
slowly. New releases were anticipated. Libraries acquired them gradually. Friends
lent them. Readers reread favourites repeatedly. There was little pressure to
keep up with an endless stream of content.
Scarcity encouraged intimacy. A
favourite novel might be read four, five or even ten times over several
decades. Many Indians can still recite entire Wodehouse passages from memory
because rereading was common. Agatha Christie's mysteries were revisited
despite the reader already knowing the murderer. MacLean's suspense survived
repeated encounters. This may seem irrational. Economically it was perfectly
understandable. When books were relatively scarce and entertainment choices
limited, rereading maximized value.
Today's abundance produces the opposite behaviour. Readers
optimize for novelty. One unread book constantly replaces another. The backlog
never ends.
The sociologist Hartmut Rosa has argued that modern life is
characterized by social acceleration—the sense that experiences, technologies
and expectations continually speed up. Reading has not escaped this
acceleration. The rhythm of literary life has quickened. Depth has often
yielded to velocity.
The Bookshelf as Furniture—and as Biography
Walk into an educated middle-class Indian home in 1985 and
one object was almost certain to greet visitors. The bookcase. Usually made of
teak or steel. Often protected behind sliding glass doors. Sometimes locked. Always
visible.
Unlike today's digital libraries, physical books announced
themselves. Guests examined titles while waiting for tea. Children grew curious
about volumes they could not yet understand. Visitors borrowed. Owners
recommended. The bookshelf became a condensed autobiography. Its contents
revealed interests, ambitions and intellectual history.
A shelf of engineering manuals beside Shakespeare. Medical
textbooks beside Wodehouse. Tagore beside Tolstoy. The arrangement was rarely
systematic. That hardly mattered.
The bookcase silently declared: "This household
values reading." The French historian Roger Chartier has emphasized
that books are not merely texts; they are also physical objects whose presence
shapes reading practices.
The disappearance of the visible bookshelf therefore matters
sociologically as much as technologically. A Kindle may contain two thousand
books. It contributes almost nothing to the social life of a drawing room.
Inherited Libraries, Inherited Conversations
One of the most beautiful features of this era was that
literary inheritance often required no conscious planning. A son preparing for
engineering entrance examinations wandered towards his father's shelf and
discovered Nevil Shute. A daughter searching for a dictionary encountered
Christie. A cousin visiting during summer holidays stumbled upon Forsyth. Entire
reading lives began accidentally. The accident mattered. Libraries encouraged
browsing. Bookcases encouraged curiosity. No algorithm predicted these
encounters. They simply happened.
The Italian writer Umberto Eco, whose own private library
famously contained tens of thousands of volumes, regarded unread books as
intellectually valuable because they constantly reminded their owner of how
much remained unknown. Family libraries performed a similar function. They
represented possibilities. Not merely possessions.
Why India Was Different
Many countries inherited British institutions. Few developed
quite the same literary ecosystem. Why? Partly because India's English-speaking
class was geographically dispersed. Unlike Britain itself, where English
naturally unified the population, or multilingual countries where English
remained confined to elites, India developed a large, pan-Indian professional
class linked by English but rooted in different linguistic traditions.
This produced an unusual cultural need. English became
neutral territory. A Bengali and a Malayali might not read one another's
regional literature. They could both read Christie. A Punjabi officer and a
Tamil scientist might possess entirely different literary inheritances at home.
English fiction became their common meeting ground. In effect, British popular
literature unintentionally became one of the cultural bridges connecting
India's linguistic diversity. That role has received surprisingly little
scholarly attention.
Most histories emphasize English as the language of
administration or higher education. Its role as a shared literary space may
have been equally important.
An Accidental Republic of Readers
Looking back, what seems most remarkable is not that
millions of Indians read Wodehouse or Christie. It is that they expected
everyone else to have read them too. Expectation transformed private reading
into public culture. References travelled effortlessly because they required no
explanation. The common bookshelf functioned almost like an unwritten
constitution of educated conversation. Nobody voted for it. Nobody administered
it. Nobody even named it. Yet it quietly shaped how an entire generation
imagined intelligence, humour, sophistication and good taste. Like many
institutions, it became visible only after it disappeared.
The Gathering Winds of Change
By the late 1980s, however, subtle cracks had begun
appearing beneath this apparently stable world. Economic reforms were
approaching. Satellite television was waiting at the door. The Soviet Union was
collapsing. The Cold War—the backdrop to MacLean, Forsyth and Fleming—was
ending.
American universities were becoming the preferred
destination for India's brightest students. Software exports were beginning to
reshape middle-class aspirations. Bookshops were expanding. Imported titles
were becoming easier to obtain. Computers entered offices. The internet
remained invisible. But history had already turned. Few readers recognized it
at the time.
The common bookshelf appeared permanent precisely because
the institutions sustaining it had existed throughout living memory. Yet
permanence is often history's greatest illusion. Within two decades, almost
every pillar described in this part would either weaken dramatically or
disappear altogether.
The next part traces that transformation—not as a story of
literary decline, but as one of the most profound changes in the cultural
economy of modern India. It was the moment when scarcity gave way to abundance,
Britain yielded to America, librarians gave way to algorithms, and a nation of
readers quietly became millions of individual reading worlds.
Part III follows …………………………….
Selected References
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction
Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone
Jerome Bruner, The Culture of Education
Herbert A. Simon, "Designing Organizations for an
Information-Rich World"
Hartmut Rosa, Social Acceleration
Roger Chartier, The Order of Books
Robert Darnton, The Kiss of Lamourette and essays on
the history of books
John Sutherland, How to Read a Novel
Umberto Eco, The Library of the Future (essays and
interviews)
Braj B. Kachru, The Indianization of English
Franco Moretti, Graphs, Maps, Trees
Alberto Manguel, A History of Reading
Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of
Change
Richard Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy
Comments
Post a Comment