Former CJI DY Chandrachud praised a new book for debunking myths surrounding British colonial rule in India. Speaking at the launch of Rakesh Dwivedi’s work, he said colonialism was wrongly portrayed as civilizing rather than exploitative.
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has commended a new book for thoroughly dismantling the “political mythology” associated with British colonial rule in India.
At the book release event for Rakesh Dwivedi’s ‘Colonisation, Crusade and Freedom in India,’ published by Rupa Publications, Justice Chandrachud emphasized that colonial rule was often depicted as necessary, reluctant, and civilizing, rather than as an effort focused on deliberate expansion and exploitation.
He stated,
“A careful reading of colonial history across regions reveals that the justificatory patterns (for colonialism) are local or isolated. One repeatedly encounters a language of order, civilization, and progress. Colonial intervention is described as reluctant governance, reporting, and responding to disorder, rather than a case of deliberate expansion.”
ALSO READ: Ex-CJI D Y Chandrachud: “Literature Humanizes The Law “
Chandrachud pointed out that this version of history presents pre-colonial societies as lacking coherence or historical continuity and unprepared for self-governance, portraying the colonial empire as a reluctant custodian managing disorder.
Praising the book, he remarked,
“What sets this book apart is the method through which the political mythology (of the necessity or benevolence of the British empire) is brought to light. It does not follow a conventional, chronological narrative, nor does it organize the analysis around isolated historical episodes. This approach resembles that of a distinguished senior counsel who is.”
The former CJI noted that the author identifies recurring propositions across centuries of imperial writing and tests them against evidence derived from economic history, global geopolitics, and comparative colonial experiences.
He elaborated,
“Each proposition is evaluated in connection with others that serve the same justificatory process, allowing patterns to emerge through structured examination rather than assertion. This method becomes especially visible in how the book organizes a vast body of imperial writing around three recurring explanatory themes,”
Chandrachud identified these themes as:
“First, that India possessed no meaningful civilizational history, or only a history of successive conquests. Second, that British rule was driven by a moral obligation to civilize. And third, that empire in India emerged accidentally as an unintended consequence of trade and political disorder.”
He added that the book does not simply dismiss these claims as caricatures but presents them in their original form for thorough examination.
Regarding the author, he noted ,
“He debunks them with the authority of a learned mind, and the examination that follows is marked by restraint and discipline,”
The ex-CJI emphasized that another notable aspect of the book is its disciplined rejection of romanticism, avoiding idealized portrayals of the pre-colonial past.
Chandrachud commented,
“Its foundation lies instead in demonstrable continuities in institutions, trade, networks, and forms of political organization, along with the recognition that political conquest does not erase civilizational history. The analysis therefore avoids two opposite errors: imperial dismissal on one side, and nationalist simplification on the other; complexity is preserved even when it unsettles familiar narrative and the structure of the book reflects the instincts of a seasoned lawyer,”
He added,
“History is organized around arguments and propositions, rather than around isolated events. The result is a text that speaks not only to historians but also to those engaged with law, governance, and constitutional interpretation. Political mythology, once recognized, becomes difficult to ignore,”
Also Read: Political Pressure From Modi Government? Ex-CJI Chandrachud Replies
Chandrachud also admired the book for reframing the understanding of the country’s colonization.
He remarked,
“The colonial assertion that India lacked a real civilizational history, the proposition that colonial rule was a civilizing duty, and the portrayal of empires as an unintended outcome of trade or disorder operate together and reinforce each other (in the book). Each performs a different justificatory role, but all move towards the same result: the displacement of responsibility,”
Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, who also addressed the audience, referenced a particular passage discussing English intellectuals perpetrating an intellectual fraud by claiming they were civilizing the colonized. He quoted that Hindustan was said to be in a state of utter barbarism, and Hindus were deemed among the most enslaved people, with a tendency toward deceit and perfidy.
He argued,
“I just pause here. Deceit and perfidy are very appropriate words but can be attributed only to the British. They cannot be attributed to our great civilization. They were deceitful in every sense of the word,”
Sibal noted that in the 1700s, India’s GDP constituted 25 percent of the global GDP.
He said,
“We were the exporters to the world. We had a vast textile industry. We were a maritime power. That is the kind of might we had. And what did we end up with? Hunger, loot, an economy destroyed, and the people subjugated. So the transition that happened was from 1700 to 1947, and the credit for this goes to the uncivilized people of the civilized world,”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also spoke at the event.