But when and where did this modern liberalism with its supposed commitment to universal freedom and equality actually exist in history? Certainly not in Europe with its . And, not in Nehru’s India either, actually. Despite Nehru’s personal liberalism, it was not that issues of religious or caste identity were irrelevant to his time. Nehru’s differences with not just Patel, but with Purshottamdas Tandon, K. M. Munshi, or Rajendra Prasad show considerable support for what we might term “soft-Hindutva” within the Congress party. Nehru had to maneuver, even threaten to resign, to keep these agenda in check. Caste was, if anything, an even more significant issue. As Rajni Kothari pointed out in the 1960s, this was managed through the “.” Local and provincial leaders deployed parochial networks of caste-based power, bringing in the votes, thus insulating Nehru from the ground realities of realpolitik and enabling him to speak the language of modern, western, liberalism transcending “parochialisms” of caste or religion. The system did not survive Nehru for too long. Indira Gandhi’s recourse to populism signed the final death warrant of the Congress system. The end of Congress hegemony after the Emergency unleashed forces that have transformed not just the political but also India’s social and cultural landscape beyond recognition. Mandir and Mandal are its current political expressions. Guha not only knows this, but has outlined some of it explicitly in his India After Gandhi. That is why it is surprising to see him turn back to the language of Nehruvian modernity in his dismissal of all forms of identity politics.