
The story hunter: Rahul Bhatia on narrative and nation building
On a Sunday morning at the Taj Mahal Tea House—a cozy Mumbai café known for its pakoras, chaat, and fine teas—we are just settling into a discussion of our book of the month when our attention is caught by two men at the next table. Deep in conversation, they pass a hardcover book between them—sometimes poring over its pages, sometimes examining the cover with care.
Curiosity gets the better of us. After a few failed attempts to identify the title, one of our group finally leans over and asks, 'Forgive us for butting in—we're a book club and just had to ask, what book is that?'
One of the men smiles. 'It's a new book—you're the first people to ask us about it in public. This is the author, Rahul Bhatia.'
And so we meet Rahul Bhatia and fellow journalist M. Rajshekhar, and get an unexpected first look at The Identity Project: The Unmaking of a Democracy, a book that would go on to become a New York Times Notable Book of 2024 and the Non-Fiction Book of the Year at the Kerala Literature Festival. Soon we're all seated at the same table, and conversation flows easily, as it often does among book lovers.
That serendipitous encounter leads to an unforgettable conversation with Rahul Bhatia—and later, a masterclass at NMIMS Mumbai with my MBA students—on journalism, power, and the narratives that shape modern India. In an era of contested facts and fragmented attention, Bhatia reminds us that stories, rigorously reported and responsibly told, are how we make sense of power. Here are edited excerpts of our conversation: Rahul Bhatia with MBA students at NMIMS, Mumbai.
You grew up in Dubai. Tell us about your childhood reading.
My parents worked at banks in Dubai—my mother worked in the treasury department, and my father was in information technology. My mother loved jokes and puns, and so our home was filled with books of limericks, joke books, books full of insults, and comics—mostly Mad magazine and Asterix. My father preferred National Geographic and PC Magazine.
My mother tried hard to get me to read the classics, but my attention wandered. I tried Shakespeare, Dickens, Melville, but they did nothing for me. I kept returning to teenage detective stories, Clarke, Asimov, and all the science fiction I could find.
You studied design at the Pratt Institute, New York, worked as Art Director at Ogilvy and Mather, but ended up finding your calling in journalism. You've written for Reuters, Cricinfo, Tehelka, Mint, The Caravan, The Guardian, The New York Times. What draws you to this profession?
It's the relationships, the personal growth, the getting to know sources over months of interviews. It's that feeling that everything in the world is available for me to write about. I am obsessed with writing things down as they happen. The narrative really, really matters. Today you find powerful people exerting a great amount of narrative control, because it allows them to shape reality in a certain way.
The truth is much more complicated, but it's not something that you see often, and I wanted to put all of that together.
You've written on politics, tech, godmen, industry and cricket. How do you choose your stories?
Back in 2011, one of my editors at The Caravan said, 'Why don't you write a story on Arnab Goswami?'
I spent five months interviewing dozens of current and former employees. Some genuinely admired him—but over 98% described horror upon horror inside the newsroom. You don't get that kind of consistency from people with just an axe to grind. There was something else going on.
When the story came out, I was a little nervous. I'd never written about someone with such a public persona. I didn't know how he'd react.
Apparently—for a brief while—Times Now considered suing The Caravan and me. But their legal advice was: don't. Everything was fact-checked.
Once you've done that kind of story and survived, the natural question becomes: what next? One assignment was investigating why bridges kept collapsing across India. Another was about N. Srinivasan, who headed India Cements and became the boss of Indian cricket.
Writing about cricket became a way to study power—how men gain it, use it, misuse it. It was almost sociological, revealing the workings of our society.
Because you can't control outcomes, but it's really important to write down what happened. The more complex and layered, the better. The story should have strong characters, something should happen to them, there should be an antagonist of some kind, and there should be a journey. I wonder if I can play around with time, with transitions, with mood. Each story has to be harder than the last. There's no point in doing it otherwise.
In your book, The Identity Project, you weave together the story of Aadhaar cards, citizenship laws, and the interminable wait of riot victims for justice along with a history of the far right. How did this book happen?
I had just written a piece about Facebook Free Basics, which was really Facebook's way of creating a version of the internet that had Facebook at the centre.
Reporting it was interesting because I saw how policy is created in India. I spoke to people who had conversations with the government, who were in the room where persuasion actually happened, and it was like nothing I had ever heard of in my life.(Read the story for more.) I felt like somebody had just said, 'there's a secret door, and we'll let you peep in for a little while'. And it blew my mind to see how the government interacts with industry. You hear about it sometimes with India's large companies. But this was Facebook behaving a little clumsily, so they were not able to cover their tracks in the way that more subtle operators would. I wrote about it.
A friend who read this story advised me to look at Aadhaar. He was right. Critics were being threatened, reporters were complaining of dropped stories, and serious data leaks were being downplayed.
Eventually, I realised this needed my full focus—so I quit my job at Reuters to write the book.
Aadhaar was pitched as India's digital utopia. Your reporting reveals it became something darker?
As I explored Aadhaar's origins, I discovered an intriguing parallel with an identical ID project commissioned by LK Advani in 2000, almost ten years before Aadhaar. Now that Advani had emerged as a potentially major character in the book, I tried to understand his motivations. That took me into the world of the Hindu Right, its beliefs, and the methods of its supporters. The book expanded from an Aadhaar story to a story about callousness, about the implementation of powerful surveillance technology in a country that occasionally unleashes horrific violence on its own citizens.
Your book shows how Aadhaar's critics were erased. How does that happen?
I spoke with reporters, economists, and lawyers who were disheartened by the role the press played. They told me of news stories that were carried in the opinion section, of the press's unwillingness to dig deeper into the numbers used to justify Aadhaar. Reporters explained what simply never made it into the papers. That's the subtext here: if it doesn't exist in the news section, it doesn't exist at all. At the same time, critics were disinvited from conferences, they received legal notices.
You've written about Goswami, Nilekani, the Government and godmen—have you ever been threatened?
I think there is this fear that if you annoy power, something bad will happen. But the truth is, if you take the longer term view, which is that if I don't write about power, it just becomes more powerful, and my environment becomes more and more unequal.
I have a family that worries every single time I have a big story coming out. But what is the alternative? It is to just be quiet, to do nothing. But if you think in terms of society at large, you feel like, okay, I need to write this. I need to write about a person who doesn't have a voice. You tell yourself: I'll do it—and trust that the environment will protect me.
There is another kind of censorship as well, isn't there—the kind of being systematically ignored. Your book has made it to NYT's top list of 2024 books. But the coverage of your book in India seems to have been quite subdued?
Yes, I have been told about things like this. About people calling, saying, Just don't invite this person to your literary festival. Just don't review this book. It's a very modern kind of censorship. You don't really know whether you're being censored or not, and that messes with your mind. Like, sometimes I was telling somebody, Have I written the book I think I have, or am I just overestimating myself? After putting in the years of work, you're like, there's an external force that is making you doubt yourself.
I am grateful for what I've got so far. The book has been reviewed by the NYT, the Guardian, the Times, the Economist, and other places; serious academics are writing about it; a scholar is using it as a basis for a serious essay about violence; school kids and college students are reading it. This is more than I could ask for.
Does having been published internationally and having written for publications like the Guardian, The New Yorker and the NYT give you more credibility ?
It works two ways. Yes, each of these names is a gatekeeper of some sort, and if you have gone through that gate, you acquire a certain something.
But again, having written for some of these places can also be seen in countries like ours as a marker of elitism. And not just elitism, but also like, Oh, you're anti-national. So it's double edged.
Despite all you've uncovered about manipulation and censorship, you keep going. What gives you faith that truth still wins—and how can our readers become part of that fight?
If you want to do something, you can't always do it on your own. You need allies, and the press is an ally.
When I was working on my Facebook story, I reached out to people who were in a position to see a lot and maybe unhappy. Sometimes they don't know who to talk to, and you reach out to them, and you're like, these are the publications I worked for. So that marks you out as a serious sort of writer.
It turns out that there are a ton of people who really don't agree with what's happening in their companies. And they will slip you little bits of information, and they'll tell you, This is all I can do. Now, go talk to other people. Sometimes, that's all you need—you don't need a full-blown whistleblower. You just need somebody to point you in the right direction.
..............
Ninety minutes later, it's time to wrap up. But the students cluster around Rahul Bhatia, reluctant to let go. One asks: 'I'd love to be a writer, but my family says it's not financially viable—what would you advise?'
'You can't do a traditional cost-benefit analysis on this,' he replies. 'You have to ask: what do you want to be remembered for? What's your legacy?'
And so it goes on, until at last he must go away, leaving behind a sense of courage and inspiration in the air. And also a set of book recommendations.
Rahul Bhatia's Book Recommendations
1. Despite the State by M. Rajshekhar
Why? A brilliant exploration of why Indian states fail, written in an engaging travelogue style.
2. Stasiland by Anna Funder
Why? A gripping account of life under East Germany's surveillance regime, relevant for understanding state control.
3. Works by Supriya Sharma
Why? Her election travelogues offer deep insights into Indian politics through grassroots conversations.
Begin this list with reading The Identity Project, with the story of Nisar who looks for justice in a nation where democracy is under threat. And write to us with your picks, your favourite books on politics and current events.
(Sonya Dutta Choudhury is a Mumbai-based journalist and the founder of Sonya's Book Box, a bespoke book service. Each week, she brings you specially curated books to give you an immersive understanding of people and places. If you have any reading recommendations or reading dilemmas, write to her at sonyasbookbox@gmail.com. The views expressed are personal.)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
10 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump govt mulls changes to US citizenship test, H-1B visa program: What it means?
Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services Joseph Edlow said this week that President Donald Trump's administration is considering changes to the test to become a US citizen. Earlier, it was reported that the administration was planning to change the visa system for skilled foreign workers by doing away with the H1-B visa lottery system. Joseph Edlow, the director of USCIS, told the New York Times on Thursday that the administration wanted to change the naturalisation test required by prospective US citizens. As of now, immigrants study 100 civics questions and then must respond correctly to six out of 10 questions to pass that portion of the test. During the first Trump administration, the agency increased the number of questions and required applicants to respond correctly to 12 out of 20 questions. Edlow said the agency plans to return to a version of that test soon, the NYT reported. In an interview with The New York Times, Joseph Edlow said the test to become a US citizen was too easy and should change. 'The test as it's laid out right now, it's not very difficult,' Edlow said on Thursday, adding. 'It's very easy to kind of memorise the answers. I don't think we're really comporting with the spirit of the law.' Edlow's proposed changes would have to be approved through the federal government's rule-making process. The Donald Trump administration is reportedly planning to revamp the H1-B visa lottery system, aiming to replace it with a more weighted and wage-linked selection process. The proposed changes aim to give preference to certain applicants based on additional criteria—potentially including wages—thereby benefiting highly-skilled and higher-paid professionals. Currently, the system is quite simple. Applicants who are eligible for H1-B visa submit their applications, and a computer-run lottery randomly selects the recipients. Each year, about 85,000 H-1B visas are issued, including 20,000 reserved for individuals holding a Master's degree or higher from a US university. On January 8, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security published a final rule to modify its process for selecting H-1B petitions when registrations surpass the annual limit of 85,000. So, what changes does the administration propose? As per Forbes, in the final rule in 2021, DHS described the new selection process as: 'The USCIS will rank and select the petitions received on the basis of the highest Occupational Employment Statistics wage level that the proffered wage equals or exceeds for the relevant Standard Occupational Classification code in the area of intended employment, beginning with OES wage level IV and proceeding in descending order with OES wage levels III, II, and I.' A study by the Institute for Progress earlier this year found, as reported by the Hindustan Times, that if higher salaries were given priority instead of using a random lottery, the average salary of an H-1B visa holder could rise from around $106,000 to $172,000. That would likely make things much harder for outsourcing firms who rely on hiring large numbers of lower-wage workers, but could be a big plus for researchers, PhD holders, and senior-level tech professionals, the report added. Doug Rand, a former Biden administration official, said changing the H1-B process to favour higher-wage earners was misguided. 'Like it or not, the H-1B program is the main way that US companies can hire the best and brightest international graduates of US universities, and Congress never allowed DHS to put its thumb on the scale based on salary,' he said. Regarding the plan to change the H-1B visa program for foreign workers, it has been the subject of debate within the Republican Party. Edlow said it should favour companies that plan to pay foreign workers higher wages. the proposed changes to the system could alleviate criticism from those in the right wing of the Republican Party who say the program attracts workers willing to accept lower salaries than American workers. This week, US Vice President JD Vance had criticised companies that lay off their own employees and then hire foreign workers. But some of Trump's most prominent backers in the tech industry said they rely on the H-1B visa program because they can't find enough qualified American workers. Edlow was quoted by NYT as saying, 'I really do think that the way H-1B needs to be used, and this is one of my favorite phrases, is to, along with a lot of other parts of immigration, supplement, not supplant, US economy and US businesses and US workers."


News18
14 hours ago
- News18
Zohran Mamdani's City-Owned Grocery Plan Faces Scrutiny After Viral Kansas City's Store Video
Last Updated: Mamdani has promoted his plan for state-owned grocery stores as a way to shift public funds away from corporate retailers. Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary last month and has since emerged as one of the leading contenders for the position of New York City mayor. Currently focused on his campaign, Mamdani has outlined several proposals, one of which includes the creation of city-owned grocery stores. However, just weeks after his victory, a viral video has cast doubt on the feasibility of such an initiative. Footage of an empty public grocery store in Kansas City, Missouri, has attracted criticism online. The video, reportedly filmed at KC Sun Fresh, shows rows of bare shelves, as reported by KSHB 41. New York Times. Speaking on The Bulwark podcast, Mamdani said he plans to open one store in each of New York City's five boroughs. He estimated the total cost of the project at $65 million. Acknowledging the experimental nature of the idea, Mamdani said, 'if they work, they work. And if they don't work, c'est la vie, then the idea was wrong." This is not the first time a public official has proposed city-owned grocery initiatives. In 2023, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson introduced a similar concept following the closure of Walmart and a Whole Foods in his city. His administration is now exploring the possibility of launching a city-run farmers' market, where vendors could sell their produce directly at one centralised location. view comments First Published: July 25, 2025, 19:37 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.


Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
'I'm all in': Alina Habba appointed acting US attorney in New Jersey; Justice Department overrules federal judges' choice
Alina Habba is appointed as New Jersey's acting US attorney, a day before her tenure as interim US attorney was set to expire on Friday. Habba made the announcement via social media that she would remain at the helm. The announcement follows the Trump administration's decision to withdraw her nomination for the permanent role, a legal technicality that now allows her to serve as acting US attorney for up to 210 more days. A spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed the move, while the White House reiterated President Trump's full backing for Habba. "President Trump continues to have full confidence in Alina Habba and her commitment to serve the people of New Jersey," said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields. The decision ends a tense standoff between Washington officials and federal judges in New Jersey, which had raised confusion within the office about who was legally in charge. Earlier this week, the judges had selected their own candidate, experienced federal prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace. But shortly after, the justice department fired Grace, accusing the judges of acting politically and reaffirming support for Habba. Grace, widely respected within the justice department, had posted her willingness to serve, calling it the 'greatest honor' to be chosen on merit. However, Habba's statement the next day left little doubt about who would lead the office. 'I don't cower to pressure. I don't answer to politics. This is a fight for justice. And I'm all in,' Habba wrote on Thursday. She followed up with a message to staff, 'There has been enough noise the past four months.' 'Let's keep our focus and get back to the important work ahead for the District of New Jersey,' the New York Times cited Habba. Habba, a former personal lawyer to Donald Trump , has no prior prosecutorial experience. Since taking the role in March, she has drawn national attention for launching investigations into prominent Democrats and declaring her ambition to help "turn New Jersey red," a stance that has raised eyebrows given the traditionally nonpartisan nature of the post. In a further twist, a Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that Habba resigned briefly on Thursday from the interim role and was reclassified as first assistant, a position that previously belonged to Grace, whom Habba herself had appointed as deputy earlier this year. Grace, a Republican and the first in her family to attend university, made her name as a federal prosecutor tackling gang violence. Her work, including high-profile MS-13 convictions, earned her recognition within the Justice Department. Legal peers, such as Robert Scrivo, praised her dedication and effectiveness. 'I don't know that anyone did it at a higher level,' Scrivo said, as quoted by New York Times. Despite recent events, Habba had publicly acknowledged Grace's contributions, telling colleagues in May that appointing her deputy had been the best decision of her tenure, a comment met with applause.