Nehru The Writer | Pride, Prejudice, and Punditry

Nehru The Writer | Pride, Prejudice, and Punditry

Perhaps the most underestimated quality of Jawaharlal Nehru—whose life has seen more than its fair share of both hagiology and denigration—was his extraordinary achievement as a writer. Having delved extensively into his books and other writings for my 2003 biography, Nehru: The Invention of India, I emerged convinced that Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the finest political writers the world has seen in the twentieth century. An India that remains divided over his political legacy can unite in appreciation of his remarkable contribution to the world of Indian letters.

It is all the more astonishing that much of his writing took place amid the privations of imprisonment, the only periods of his life that afforded him the sustained quiet needed to produce memorable prose. In eight terms of imprisonment between 1922 and 1945, Nehru spent a grand total of 3,262 days in eight different jails. Nearly ten years of his life were to be wasted behind bars—though not entirely wasted, since they allowed him to produce several remarkable books of reflection, nationalist awakening, and autobiography.
He used his time in jail to read widely—his first stint in prison featured the Quran, the Bible, and the Bhagavad Gita, a history of the Holy Roman Empire, Ernest Binfield Havell’s The History of Aryan Rule in India from the Earliest Times to the Death of Akbar with its paeans to India’s glorious past, and the memoirs of the Mughal emperor Babur, and the French traveller François Bernier. In 1926, he wrote that ‘what is required in India most is a course of study of Bertrand Russell’s books’. During another stint in jail in 1930, he devoured Russell, Nikolai Bukharin, and Oswald Spengler, read André Maurois and Romain Rolland in French, and even threw in Lloyd George’s speeches and Shakespeare’s sonnets. He was allowed to take notes, though he rarely needed to consult them; once he had finished a book it found a place in his mental reference library.
It was from this well-furnished intellect that Nehru produced his own work, emerging from a mind that remained intensely curious and ready to engage with the new. After a decade at the feet of his father, Motilal, and the awe-inspiring Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru spent most
of 1926–27 in Europe. These twenty months were a hiatus in Nehru’s
political career but not in the development of his political thought.
Jawaharlal kept up his writing, publishing a letter in the Journal de
Genève and numerous articles in the Indian press. He boarded his ship
in Bombay a committed Gandhian, his worldview shaped almost wholly
by the inspirational teachings of the Mahatma. When he returned in
December 1927, having spent the interim discovering the intellectual
currents of Europe and rethinking his own assumptions, he briefly refused
to meet his old mentor. The rebellion was short-lived and did not derive
from any fundamental differences over the national question, but it was
revealing, nonetheless. Jawaharlal left India as Motilal Nehru’s son and
Mahatma Gandhi’s acolyte, but he returned his own man.
His four-day visit to the USSR in 1927, supplemented by extensive
reading about Russia in English, prompted a series of articles on the USSR
in the Indian papers which were compiled in one volume in December
1928 under the unimaginative title Soviet Russia: Some Random Sketches
and Impressions. The USSR’s progress in such diverse areas as agriculture
and literacy, its eradication of class and gender discrimination, its
treatment of minorities, and the combination of professionalism and
zeal that marked the Leninist revolutionaries, all made a deeply positive
impression on the Indian nationalist. Jawaharlal Nehru’s first book was,
therefore, a paean to the Soviet Union. Yet those critics who saw him
as ‘pro-Soviet’ overlooked his independence of mind, always his most
attractive feature.
His insights into world affairs revealed both intelligence and acuity.
He wrote as early as 1927! that ‘England, in order to save herself
from extinction, will become a satellite of the United States and incite the
imperialism and capitalism of America to fight by her side.’ He suggested
that a communist victory in China would not necessarily mean that
the country would be ruled by the principles of Marx; the role of the
‘small peasant’ would ensure a departure from ‘pure communism’. At the
same time, he found it difficult to escape the prism of the anti-colonial
freedom fighter; while taking a benign view of Russian and Chinese
communism, he thought that ‘the great problem of the near future will
be American imperialism, even more than British imperialism. Or it may
be…that the two will join together to create a powerful Anglo-Saxon

bloc to dominate the world.’


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *