The links to the other parts of the review:
Part 1 - Close Up with India's Freedom Struggle: A Review of Jawaharlal Nehru's Autobiography
Part 2 - Close Up with India's Freedom Struggle: A Review of Jawaharlal Nehru's Autobiography
Part 3 - Close Up with India's Freedom Struggle: A Review of Jawaharlal Nehru's Autobiography
The autobiography provides excellent insights on the dynamics of the mindset of a pioneer in pursuit of groundbreaking achievement. Recently, there has been a study on 'grit' by Angel Duckworth to assess the impact of grit on achievement. She talks about the role of character of an achiever. Largely, earlier studies had relegated the role of character by giving preference to the background or childhood circumstances. But that does not explain Lincoln, Gandhiji, Mandela and many others' achievements. I think, high intellect coupled with nobility of thought (which may be called 'character') leads to a 'calling' for enlightenment. The sheer grit of the individual to achieve the impossible guided by the enlightenment leads to greater good for the humanity. I am using 'calling' and 'enlightenment' on purpose. Though both the terms have heavy religious overtones, here they are used in a larger context.
Part 1 - Close Up with India's Freedom Struggle: A Review of Jawaharlal Nehru's Autobiography
Part 2 - Close Up with India's Freedom Struggle: A Review of Jawaharlal Nehru's Autobiography
Part 3 - Close Up with India's Freedom Struggle: A Review of Jawaharlal Nehru's Autobiography
The above preface was very necessary, because I could see the phenomenon of deep introspection by Nehru in prison. He read a lot of books, followed the current global happenings and set to introspect deeply. He also set a healthy regime to maintain health. The solitary confinement was made to work in favour of the movement through the dep introspection and absorbing the revolutionary ideas in action globally, then. Nehru could deeply understand communism, socialism and capitalism and their relevance for India. He was for the focused approach for political freedom before achieving the social reforms as he felt that these other issues may distract the movement. When Gandhiji announced his fasting against the treatment against untouchables, Nehru felt that the timing was wrong. When Gandhiji succeeded on this, he appreciated Gandhiji's action. In my view, Gandhiji's enlightenment covered much wider and deeper understanding than anybody else's in India, at least. He could instinctively gauge and guide the mood of the nation and take appropriate action. Gandhiji's seemingly 'magical' or 'metaphysical' feats reinforced his leadership both over the masses and the movement.
Due to Nehru's mother's deteriorating health conditions, Nehru was released a few days earlier from the prison.After attending to his mother, Nehru went to meet Gandhiji in Pune. Nehru visited the headquarters of the Liberal party in Pune. That sets in motion of his thoughts on Liberals. While, the Liberals were happy enough for Dominion Status in the government, the the Congress was for independence. Nehru seems to show his bitterness towards the Liberals. Without judging anybody, one can see clear dynamics of the mind of a pioneer trying to achieve something impossibly great. While he is trying to achieve it through extremely difficult struggle, he feels stymied by the others who take comfort by achieving much less and enjoying the fruits of such lesser achievement. Though the pioneers are endowed with or inculcated equanimity, sometimes when struggling with uncertainty of the achievement of the goal, it is difficult not to be bitter. Gandhiji, in my view, possessed more equanimity compared to the other leaders.Here, it gives a better view of the dynamics of the minds. Especially, one needs to look from the context that Nehru had felt that in 1921 itself India would have gained independence from the British if Satyagraha was not discontinued by Gandhiji! We can see the similar optimism in 1930 too! The autobiography was written in 1935, independence was achieved in 1947. ... And, add to the fact that the World War II happened in the interim. Any great endeavour is fraught with uncertainty, great efforts, no perfect solution, pull by multiple stakeholders in different directions applying different pressures in varying quality and variety. Amongst all these the leaders need to navigate to the desired solution. So, in a way the leaders go through kaleidoscopic maze which keeps on changing not only due to external forces but also internal forces!
Nehru's writing brings more introspection and provides more details about the happenings of 1933 and 1934 in the last chapters. He dedicates the last chapters to the dominion state v/s independence, the record of British Rule, Gandhiji's paradoxes. I noticed some amount of bitterness towards the other parties, especially the Liberals. In a later chapter, Nehru was told that he was being called as 'catty', and in his further retrospection he admits of frustration leading to the bitterness.
The predominant thought then, was that the British helped us by introducing us to the latest developments in technology and the scientific temper. Additionally, British provided us the rail network, centralized administration system, judicial system, educational institutes, which led to establish the sense of nationalism amongst Indians. But Nehru sees it beyond the clutter and identifies that the scientific developments were pervading through the globe anyway. The establishment of institutions the British are attributed to were done to facilitate their own trading to systematically exploit the country. Additionally, the British tried to bring in division amongst people, whenever required. An aggressor or victor always tries to establish his superiority to rule the others through propaganda, subtly or otherwise. Nehru identifies such mechanism was deployed and advanced by the British. He is pained to see that the others, especially the Liberals, not able to see through this exploitation.
A leader, trying to bring great changes,- can see beyond what others can see, but the challenge lies in communicating effectively to energize the masses and the other stakeholders to achieve the seemingly the 'un-achievable'. The sheer inertia and the efforts of the establishment to maintain status quo and the reluctance and/or passiveness of the fence sitters adds to the problem.
Nehru refers to Bihar state hit by an earthquake. Under exemplary Gandhian, Rajendra Prasad's leadership the Congress did an excellent job. Nehru refers to his own, rather 'theatrical' action of clearing the debris. Nehru's criticism of the Government's ineffective and inefficient handling of the earthquake was not taken well by some groups. Nehru refers to a specific fact that there were large number of Railway workmen quartered near the earthquake area and they were not quickly mobilized for the relief. He also comments that the Government did a better job later. But the anger shows the attitude of the people that they felt obliged to the Government for the relief rather than seeing that as the Government's duty. Nehru also refers to the pain he felt about Gandhiji's statement that the earthquake was the curse inflicted on people for practicing untouchability. Earthquake is a natural phenomenon which can be explained by science though it can't be predicted even now. Nehru clearly had difference of opinion with Gandhiji and he shares those issues in a chapter 'Paradoxes'.
Gandhiji, in my view was pursuing spiritual salvation and expected the masses to follow him. He advocated and observed total abstinence strictly. He felt that the rich and the royalty are the trustees of the wealth to use for the betterment of the masses. In real life a very few rich and the royalty act as the trustees of the wealth. He believed in achieving win-win situation with everybody. These were the qualities which attracted the masses and the class to him. Though Gandhiji gave strength to the Congress in the political movement, he was on his own way to salvation.Gandhiji's views on the scientific and technological developments were little different from the pragmatic ones. Where virtuosity within every individual will eventually lead to virtuous society. That's practically very long way. At the same time society should strive to leverage the scientific, technological, economical, social, political developments to enhance the materialistic aspect of all the individuals. Whereas Gandhiji seemed to stress on only the virtuousness of individuals. Nehru, while respecting the nobleness of Gandhiji's thoughts and action, drew pragmatic plan of action. My takeaway: A leader needs to appreciate the nobility of purpose, means and action of the stakeholders. Additionally, he needs to have better understanding of the present, fast and project his understanding into future to come with a suitable plan to achieve the goals. He needs to dovetail the strengths of all the stakeholders to arrive at the pragmatic plan of action and execute it.
The last part of the book covers Nehru's views on various issues. One of the chapters deals with the difference between conversion v/s coercion as Nehru sees. He strongly argues that, though ideally conversion brings desired changes in the long run, to achieve results in short term coercion is necessary. Non-violence movement benefited India's freedom movement. To govern a nation coercion needs to be considered as an option, due to increasing geopolitical complexities and the exercise of violence by powerful nations. One can see a very pragmatic approach by Nehru choosing from multiple options and exercising each of them in the right degree and variation to deliver the desired results. His observation about Patna Congress resolutions are objective. He observes that the resolutions might have been passed without much of deliberations.
The predominant thought then, was that the British helped us by introducing us to the latest developments in technology and the scientific temper. Additionally, British provided us the rail network, centralized administration system, judicial system, educational institutes, which led to establish the sense of nationalism amongst Indians. But Nehru sees it beyond the clutter and identifies that the scientific developments were pervading through the globe anyway. The establishment of institutions the British are attributed to were done to facilitate their own trading to systematically exploit the country. Additionally, the British tried to bring in division amongst people, whenever required. An aggressor or victor always tries to establish his superiority to rule the others through propaganda, subtly or otherwise. Nehru identifies such mechanism was deployed and advanced by the British. He is pained to see that the others, especially the Liberals, not able to see through this exploitation.
A leader, trying to bring great changes,- can see beyond what others can see, but the challenge lies in communicating effectively to energize the masses and the other stakeholders to achieve the seemingly the 'un-achievable'. The sheer inertia and the efforts of the establishment to maintain status quo and the reluctance and/or passiveness of the fence sitters adds to the problem.
Nehru refers to Bihar state hit by an earthquake. Under exemplary Gandhian, Rajendra Prasad's leadership the Congress did an excellent job. Nehru refers to his own, rather 'theatrical' action of clearing the debris. Nehru's criticism of the Government's ineffective and inefficient handling of the earthquake was not taken well by some groups. Nehru refers to a specific fact that there were large number of Railway workmen quartered near the earthquake area and they were not quickly mobilized for the relief. He also comments that the Government did a better job later. But the anger shows the attitude of the people that they felt obliged to the Government for the relief rather than seeing that as the Government's duty. Nehru also refers to the pain he felt about Gandhiji's statement that the earthquake was the curse inflicted on people for practicing untouchability. Earthquake is a natural phenomenon which can be explained by science though it can't be predicted even now. Nehru clearly had difference of opinion with Gandhiji and he shares those issues in a chapter 'Paradoxes'.
Gandhiji, in my view was pursuing spiritual salvation and expected the masses to follow him. He advocated and observed total abstinence strictly. He felt that the rich and the royalty are the trustees of the wealth to use for the betterment of the masses. In real life a very few rich and the royalty act as the trustees of the wealth. He believed in achieving win-win situation with everybody. These were the qualities which attracted the masses and the class to him. Though Gandhiji gave strength to the Congress in the political movement, he was on his own way to salvation.Gandhiji's views on the scientific and technological developments were little different from the pragmatic ones. Where virtuosity within every individual will eventually lead to virtuous society. That's practically very long way. At the same time society should strive to leverage the scientific, technological, economical, social, political developments to enhance the materialistic aspect of all the individuals. Whereas Gandhiji seemed to stress on only the virtuousness of individuals. Nehru, while respecting the nobleness of Gandhiji's thoughts and action, drew pragmatic plan of action. My takeaway: A leader needs to appreciate the nobility of purpose, means and action of the stakeholders. Additionally, he needs to have better understanding of the present, fast and project his understanding into future to come with a suitable plan to achieve the goals. He needs to dovetail the strengths of all the stakeholders to arrive at the pragmatic plan of action and execute it.
The last part of the book covers Nehru's views on various issues. One of the chapters deals with the difference between conversion v/s coercion as Nehru sees. He strongly argues that, though ideally conversion brings desired changes in the long run, to achieve results in short term coercion is necessary. Non-violence movement benefited India's freedom movement. To govern a nation coercion needs to be considered as an option, due to increasing geopolitical complexities and the exercise of violence by powerful nations. One can see a very pragmatic approach by Nehru choosing from multiple options and exercising each of them in the right degree and variation to deliver the desired results. His observation about Patna Congress resolutions are objective. He observes that the resolutions might have been passed without much of deliberations.
He also covers the current developments, especially the elections. Nehru's bitterness towards 'opportunists', 'careerists', .. is well on display! He seems to have looked forward to his schadenfreude moment of these opportunists' losses in the election. The Congress performed remarkably well, though Nehru deplores some realpolitik considerations at play.
He leverages his knowledge of global political & economical developments to deconstruct them to get better insights. He tries to come out with the most suitable system for India. He commends the efforts of Roosevelt in USA and notes Roosevelt's great quality of owning up to his mistakes.
Going through these chapters, I get the following learning. At times one may sense that these are rather imputations, but I don't deny the subjectivity involved. An effective leader's mind absorbs the knowledge from various sources. In the light of accumulated knowledge, the mind freely assesses the current chaotic developments from multiple vantage points and angles. The effective leader's attitude is focused on arriving at a highly effective executable solution. S/He goes ahead and executes his plan in challenging situation with the help of his/her team members.
The autobiography covers the most poignant point when Nehru's wife was not keeping well. Many time Nehru was conveyed that he could get relief from the imprisonment to attend to his ailing wife. Nehru shares his resolve not to seek concessions. Additionally, he also writes about his wife's specific request not to seek such concession. In a way, all his family members especially his father, mother and wife, shared the same ideals and convictions. Yesterday, I was watching Carl Benz's biography. For shy Carl Benz, his wife Bertha stood as support in bringing out the 'motor wagon' invention, while the local churches were opposed to the idea of horseless carriages. Bertha, not only did she first ride on the vehicle alone to get great reviews, she also contributed to the invention of the break pads. additionally she arranged fro the funds to support Carl Benz! Any leader has the challenge of getting the support, conviction and commitment from his family while s/he struggles to bring revolutionary changes.
Nehru shares his views and updated the biography after five years in 1940. The world was in the midst of the World War II. Personally, Nehru had lost his wife and mother. He was sensing that his leadership was not well accepted by the Congress members. His writing reveals his loss of optimism. He also notes he got a feeling that the autobiography seemed to be written by a different person. He shares his experiences of the countrywide electioneering campaign. One gets the sense of widening rift between him and Gandhiji between 1930 and 1935.
If we observe the struggle over years, it started with optimistic feeling that the freedom is just a few years away. Then it took many more years than the anticipation. The other parties and communities had different views and agendas on the way. The British true to their empire building spirit tried and succeeded in bringing the wide irreparable rift between the communities and parties. Even though Gandhiji was with the Congress, he had long term vision of bringing great change through improvements in every person from within rather than through economic or political freedom.Gandhiji's belief that the rich and the royalty to behave like trustees for the society could not be achieved so easily and at the short period. Over and above all these, the World War II broke out. The great struggle for the independence continued for seven more years.
At the end, there was a groundswell for Nehru to accept the post of Prime Minister of India. Jawaharlal Nehru was elected as the Interim Prime Minister continued to serve the country in the same position until his untimely death on the 27th May 1964.
The autobiography represents the ceaseless struggle for one's ideals and provides many lessons for the dreamers to think big and achieve it for the benefit of the larger society!
The links to the other parts of the review:
The autobiography represents the ceaseless struggle for one's ideals and provides many lessons for the dreamers to think big and achieve it for the benefit of the larger society!
The links to the other parts of the review:
