What do you think?
Rate this book
An Autobiography: Toward Freedom
First published in 1936, and now available in a centenary edition, this book was written by Nehru almost entirely in prison from June 1934 to February 1935. His account, though replete with autobiographical details, is much more than a personal document; in the words of Rabindranath Tagore, "Through all its details there runs a deep current of humanity which overpasses the tangles of facts and leads us to the person who is greater than his deeds, and truer than his surroundings."
648 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1940
133 people are currently reading
2072 people want to read
About the author
Mark Tully
53 books132 followersSir William Mark Tully was the Chief of Bureau for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in New Delhi for 22 years. Schooled in England, he stayed mostly in India covering all major incidents in South Asia during his tenure. He was made an Officer of The Order of the British Empire in 1985 and was awarded the Padma Shree in 1992, a rare distinction for a non-Indian. He was knighted in the 2002 New Year Honours. In 2005 he received the Padma Bhushan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
September 2, 2016
Jawaharlal Nehru, a man I shall always be sorry I never met, wrote a desperately fascinating book! Arguably the most under-rated book of the twentieth century.
Jawaharlal Nehru can only be described as Plato's philosopher king. He was an extraordinary writer, incredible reader, incorruptible statesman, and a technology lover who had romantic relationship with environment, democracy and justice. So it would be impossible to write about him without romantic manner. As Introduction goes, "What is the one salient thing to say about Nehru?", there has been too much talk of East and West can never meet, 'Nehru is proof that they have already met.'
It is strange, a man of his stature has been reduced to Nehru-dynasty( which he did not create ) and China war. It reflects our intellectual bankruptcy that a man who did more than any other Indian freedom fighter in political struggle(spent almost 10 years in jail and organised endless protests) and then went on as PM to serve us for 17 long years in the most difficult circumstances. In return, we reduced his legacy to one event. We forgot incredible things he did, to name a few- how he nurtured industrialization, gave voting rights to women, crushed caste system, preserved democracy, advance scientific temper, fought against religious bigotry, implemented constitutional rights not just in letter but also in spirit.
Most humane thing for us to do, just as we have forgiven Thomas Jefferson for keeping slaves, Dr King for plagiarism, and Gandhi for preaching nonsense about earth quake as a punishment of our sin of untouchibility. With same gravity and respect, Instead of reducing him to China war crisis, we can acknowledge his invaluable contribution without-which India would have not reached to its present form of being a free democracy. It is pity how little we know about him and rely on uneducated stupid politicians to supply us inaccurate opinion on his legacy.
For me there will always be a Jawaharlal Nehru. Canadian journalist was right, "Jawaharlal is Jefferson, Washington and Churchill rolled into one; that is why, we call him the light of Asia"
In the end, a man who had most advanced education of England and product of most aristocratic family of India, gave up comfortable road and spent 10 years in prison cell, where rats used to run through his face at least twice a night. I think I owe this man a great deal for my freedom, perhaps for such a debt there can be no such thing as repayment but I hope one day I will become his biographer.
Jawaharlal Nehru can only be described as Plato's philosopher king. He was an extraordinary writer, incredible reader, incorruptible statesman, and a technology lover who had romantic relationship with environment, democracy and justice. So it would be impossible to write about him without romantic manner. As Introduction goes, "What is the one salient thing to say about Nehru?", there has been too much talk of East and West can never meet, 'Nehru is proof that they have already met.'
It is strange, a man of his stature has been reduced to Nehru-dynasty( which he did not create ) and China war. It reflects our intellectual bankruptcy that a man who did more than any other Indian freedom fighter in political struggle(spent almost 10 years in jail and organised endless protests) and then went on as PM to serve us for 17 long years in the most difficult circumstances. In return, we reduced his legacy to one event. We forgot incredible things he did, to name a few- how he nurtured industrialization, gave voting rights to women, crushed caste system, preserved democracy, advance scientific temper, fought against religious bigotry, implemented constitutional rights not just in letter but also in spirit.
Most humane thing for us to do, just as we have forgiven Thomas Jefferson for keeping slaves, Dr King for plagiarism, and Gandhi for preaching nonsense about earth quake as a punishment of our sin of untouchibility. With same gravity and respect, Instead of reducing him to China war crisis, we can acknowledge his invaluable contribution without-which India would have not reached to its present form of being a free democracy. It is pity how little we know about him and rely on uneducated stupid politicians to supply us inaccurate opinion on his legacy.
For me there will always be a Jawaharlal Nehru. Canadian journalist was right, "Jawaharlal is Jefferson, Washington and Churchill rolled into one; that is why, we call him the light of Asia"
In the end, a man who had most advanced education of England and product of most aristocratic family of India, gave up comfortable road and spent 10 years in prison cell, where rats used to run through his face at least twice a night. I think I owe this man a great deal for my freedom, perhaps for such a debt there can be no such thing as repayment but I hope one day I will become his biographer.
May 28, 2013
Whenever I read Pandit Nehru I feel like my father is writing to me. The quality of prose is exquisite and seldom other writer match this skill. Nehru's first book I read is 'Discovery of India'. But after reading 'Glimpses of world history 'I became staunch admirer of Nehru. When I was reading 'Glimpses of world history' I decided to read his autobiography. This is long book of 650 pages but book flows with the masterly prose of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. You can find plenty of quotable quotes in this book. This book was written in 1936 so it doesn't contains events of his after life. The basic thought process of this remarkable leader can be understood by reading this tome. Major portion of this book is related to working of congress and major events of freedom struggle between 1910-35. After a brief description of his lineage and childhood Nehru writes about the major events of freedom struggle. He writes in detail about Gandhi and their difference of opinion.
Here are some beautiful lines which I marked while reading this book:-
1. Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from other.
2. Conceit, like fat on human body, grows imperceptibly, layer upon layer, and the person whom it affects is unconscious of the daily accretion.
3. One extravagance which I have kept up will be hard to give up, and this is the buying of books.
Here are some beautiful lines which I marked while reading this book:-
1. Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from other.
2. Conceit, like fat on human body, grows imperceptibly, layer upon layer, and the person whom it affects is unconscious of the daily accretion.
3. One extravagance which I have kept up will be hard to give up, and this is the buying of books.
February 13, 2021
While I was not as influenced or engrossed by this book as I was by Nehru's "The Discovery of India", this was still an extremely enjoyable read. His amazing prose is on full display, and much of the book is very personal and introspective. It is split into more than 60 chapters, some of them only 5 or 6 pages, which makes it very digestible in small spurts and allows the reader to pick it up or put it down with ease.
The fact that it was written in jail, Nehru admits, influenced its tone very much. He had a surprising amount of objectivity, about himself and events around him, and his account of his own life and the nationalist movement feels honest. The most enjoyable parts of the book are his long philosophical digressions on the inability of modern prisons to enact any kind of rehabilitation, the meaning of religion, the utility of non-violence, and the necessity for radical changes in India and the world. This is Nehru at his most radical; some readers may be surprised to see his impassioned appeals for socialism, defense of the Soviet Union, and critiques of private property and vested interests. There are also compelling accounts of Nehru's experience of the repressive apparatus of the British Raj, farcical trials and lathi charges, mounting barricades, and the trivialities of prison life.
Much of the book has aged remarkably well- the sense of living in an age where the old is dying and the new is struggling to be born is pervasive throughout the book. Nehru's chapter on "The Liberal Outlook" surprised me with just how applicable it remains as a critique of centrism and excessive moderation. His disdain for reactionaries, critiques of imperialism, and examination of the structural violence of capitalism still feel relevant.
Other parts of the book have not aged as well. It was ultimately focused on the present, written as it was in the midst of the nationalist struggle, but that means Nehru devotes a great deal of space to correcting misconceptions or addressing critics. This can be enjoyable at times, but the book was- I think- a bit too long, and these sections can sometimes drag. The repeated analyses of Gandhi, and the contradictory elements of his thought, grew tiresome as well. Nehru is not uncritical of Gandhi and the Congress in this book, and one section in particular is very harsh on Gandhi's quite strange views on economics and society. However, one gets the sense that Nehru was unable to convert his criticisms into action- he always remained a loyal disciple of Gandhi and a staunch partisan for the Congress, even as he admitted there deep differences in outlook between them, and that stifled his career as a result. One cannot help but wonder what could have been had he allowed his radicalism to lead him to a break with the Congress. Perhaps he would have become an isolated political figure, and someone worse would have emerged to lead India after independence. It's hard to say, but his admissions of a sense of isolation and ideological discontent amidst his peers makes it hard not to speculate.
Suffice it to say, if one is looking for a deeply personal account of the Indian independence movement, I do not know if many works can compare.
"The years I have spent in prison! Sitting alone, wrapped in my thoughts, how many seasons I have seen go by, following one another into oblivion! How many moons I have watched wax and wane, and the pageant of the stars moving along inexorably and majestically! How many yesterdays of my youth lie buried here! Sometimes I see the ghosts of these dead yesterdays rise up, bringing poignant memories, and whispering to me: 'Was it worth while?' There is no hesitation about the answer."
The fact that it was written in jail, Nehru admits, influenced its tone very much. He had a surprising amount of objectivity, about himself and events around him, and his account of his own life and the nationalist movement feels honest. The most enjoyable parts of the book are his long philosophical digressions on the inability of modern prisons to enact any kind of rehabilitation, the meaning of religion, the utility of non-violence, and the necessity for radical changes in India and the world. This is Nehru at his most radical; some readers may be surprised to see his impassioned appeals for socialism, defense of the Soviet Union, and critiques of private property and vested interests. There are also compelling accounts of Nehru's experience of the repressive apparatus of the British Raj, farcical trials and lathi charges, mounting barricades, and the trivialities of prison life.
Much of the book has aged remarkably well- the sense of living in an age where the old is dying and the new is struggling to be born is pervasive throughout the book. Nehru's chapter on "The Liberal Outlook" surprised me with just how applicable it remains as a critique of centrism and excessive moderation. His disdain for reactionaries, critiques of imperialism, and examination of the structural violence of capitalism still feel relevant.
Other parts of the book have not aged as well. It was ultimately focused on the present, written as it was in the midst of the nationalist struggle, but that means Nehru devotes a great deal of space to correcting misconceptions or addressing critics. This can be enjoyable at times, but the book was- I think- a bit too long, and these sections can sometimes drag. The repeated analyses of Gandhi, and the contradictory elements of his thought, grew tiresome as well. Nehru is not uncritical of Gandhi and the Congress in this book, and one section in particular is very harsh on Gandhi's quite strange views on economics and society. However, one gets the sense that Nehru was unable to convert his criticisms into action- he always remained a loyal disciple of Gandhi and a staunch partisan for the Congress, even as he admitted there deep differences in outlook between them, and that stifled his career as a result. One cannot help but wonder what could have been had he allowed his radicalism to lead him to a break with the Congress. Perhaps he would have become an isolated political figure, and someone worse would have emerged to lead India after independence. It's hard to say, but his admissions of a sense of isolation and ideological discontent amidst his peers makes it hard not to speculate.
Suffice it to say, if one is looking for a deeply personal account of the Indian independence movement, I do not know if many works can compare.
"The years I have spent in prison! Sitting alone, wrapped in my thoughts, how many seasons I have seen go by, following one another into oblivion! How many moons I have watched wax and wane, and the pageant of the stars moving along inexorably and majestically! How many yesterdays of my youth lie buried here! Sometimes I see the ghosts of these dead yesterdays rise up, bringing poignant memories, and whispering to me: 'Was it worth while?' There is no hesitation about the answer."
May 25, 2015
A bright, thoughtful, lively, insightful and passionate individual, not presented with all the answers in life, but with a strong curiosity to learn. I was moved by his reflections on marriage, religion, colonialism, nature and life.
"I am afraid our veneer of civilized conduct is thin enough, and, when passions are aroused, it rubs off and reveals something that is not good to look at."
"To me these years have brought one rich gift among many others. More and more I have looked upon life as an adventure of absorbing interest, where there is so much to learn, so much to do. I have continually had a feeling of growing up, and that feeling is still with me and gives a zest to my activities as well as to the reading of books, and generally makes life worth while."
"Perhaps it is the struggle that gives value to life, not so much the ultimate result. Often it is difficult to know which is the right path; it is easier sometimes to know what is not right, and to avoid that is something after all.
"I am afraid our veneer of civilized conduct is thin enough, and, when passions are aroused, it rubs off and reveals something that is not good to look at."
"To me these years have brought one rich gift among many others. More and more I have looked upon life as an adventure of absorbing interest, where there is so much to learn, so much to do. I have continually had a feeling of growing up, and that feeling is still with me and gives a zest to my activities as well as to the reading of books, and generally makes life worth while."
"Perhaps it is the struggle that gives value to life, not so much the ultimate result. Often it is difficult to know which is the right path; it is easier sometimes to know what is not right, and to avoid that is something after all.
October 25, 2024
He wasn’t of the breed of politicians that have come to be here in India. Worth reading.
September 11, 2020
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru - the first Prime Minister of independent India, maker of Modern India and the man the right-wingers love to hate today.
This is his autobiography, not written as a reflection in the sunset years of his life - in fact, it was compiled much earlier, in the 1930s, mostly as a collection of his writings during the many years he spent in prison as part of the fight for Independence against the British rule. And as a result of the time period, it gives a very personal peek into the politics of the era, often a very different perspective from what we've been taught in our school textbooks. He starts with his childhood and goes on about how he overcame shyness and a fear of public speaking to be thrust into the midst of politics; his relationship with his father, wife and other family and of course, his many thoughts and ideologies about life and the state of the world. He also touches in the latter part about his difference of opinion on ideology yet immense respect for Gandhi; again a topic that is just not touched upon enough otherwise.
His language and writing, as is already known, is impeccable and the individual chapters are very informative and enriching; making it a book you can easily browse through randomly too, which is what I did over the past few months. Very pleased that I got around to reading it.
This is his autobiography, not written as a reflection in the sunset years of his life - in fact, it was compiled much earlier, in the 1930s, mostly as a collection of his writings during the many years he spent in prison as part of the fight for Independence against the British rule. And as a result of the time period, it gives a very personal peek into the politics of the era, often a very different perspective from what we've been taught in our school textbooks. He starts with his childhood and goes on about how he overcame shyness and a fear of public speaking to be thrust into the midst of politics; his relationship with his father, wife and other family and of course, his many thoughts and ideologies about life and the state of the world. He also touches in the latter part about his difference of opinion on ideology yet immense respect for Gandhi; again a topic that is just not touched upon enough otherwise.
His language and writing, as is already known, is impeccable and the individual chapters are very informative and enriching; making it a book you can easily browse through randomly too, which is what I did over the past few months. Very pleased that I got around to reading it.
August 17, 2020
Among the various things that Nehru receives praise for, the preeminent must be his honesty and integrity. In his speeches, letters, interviews, and this autobiography, he reserves little for his heart. His passions, infatuations, aversions, fears and anxieties, disappointments, and vulnerabilities - everything, there is almost nothing that he does not meditate on. The book is far more realistic than most other auto-biographies, like Gandhi's for instance. There are no epiphanies in the book; there is a journey in it of a man who never stopped learning. Nehru offers plenty of feed to be both branded "Pseudo-secular" and 'islamophobic', a 'sycophant' as well as a 'traitor', an elitist as well as a slight stray. Added to all its glamour is its pronounced cuteness. The book is very very cute.
October 1, 2015
Never mind! Wasn't expecting anything fruitful.
August 20, 2025
I was really torn between giving this book a 4 star rating or 5.
Firstly, Nehru is an excellent writer. His command over the English language is exquisite. This came as a pleasant surprise as I was really not expecting this.
He provides incisive analysis of contemporary events and attitudes and provides plenty of nuance - even with positions and people he may disagree with. Nehru comes across as a very self-aware individual and his arguments are intellectually honest, his supportive reasonings for his positions can sometimes be so expansive and detailed that they border on exhausting (but, oddly, never pedantic). It is a treat to get his views and analysis on contemporary issues of his time, but he truly shines when he discusses varied topics like the psyche of the British, life (and animals) in jail, the diverse visions of his fellow freedom fighters and his assessment of Gandhi whom he both loved and disagreed with extensively.
As one of many who were born in a free country due to the struggle, ceaseless effort and sacrifices of individuals like Nehru, this book carries with it an emotional force that is rare to find.
Nonetheless, I went with a 4 star rating due to the following reasons:
1. The book reads more like a memoir than a comprehensive life story. Within a short 30 pages, Nehru covers his childhood, adolescence and his studies in England. I would've liked to read more about his experiences growing up or about his life as an Indian in imperial England. He had the education of an "English Gentleman" as he himself confesses but unfortunately we don't get to hear much about his life there. I contrast this with Subhas Chandra Bose's uncompleted autobiography where he gives a vivid impression of his experiences growing up in colonial India and his time spent in England. It helps to understand the underlying person better and, possibly, the root of their convictions.
2. In the first half of the book Nehru goes into excessive detail on the inner workings of the Indian National Congress, their varied committees and sub-committees and how they are organised. He provides a very vivid description of the bureaucratic machine. I am not saying these were not important topics to discuss, but the extent and length to which they were discussed was regrettable - especially given how few pages were set aside to discuss his pre-political life.
Overall, I am very grateful to have read this book and can recommend it wholeheartedly.
Firstly, Nehru is an excellent writer. His command over the English language is exquisite. This came as a pleasant surprise as I was really not expecting this.
He provides incisive analysis of contemporary events and attitudes and provides plenty of nuance - even with positions and people he may disagree with. Nehru comes across as a very self-aware individual and his arguments are intellectually honest, his supportive reasonings for his positions can sometimes be so expansive and detailed that they border on exhausting (but, oddly, never pedantic). It is a treat to get his views and analysis on contemporary issues of his time, but he truly shines when he discusses varied topics like the psyche of the British, life (and animals) in jail, the diverse visions of his fellow freedom fighters and his assessment of Gandhi whom he both loved and disagreed with extensively.
As one of many who were born in a free country due to the struggle, ceaseless effort and sacrifices of individuals like Nehru, this book carries with it an emotional force that is rare to find.
Nonetheless, I went with a 4 star rating due to the following reasons:
1. The book reads more like a memoir than a comprehensive life story. Within a short 30 pages, Nehru covers his childhood, adolescence and his studies in England. I would've liked to read more about his experiences growing up or about his life as an Indian in imperial England. He had the education of an "English Gentleman" as he himself confesses but unfortunately we don't get to hear much about his life there. I contrast this with Subhas Chandra Bose's uncompleted autobiography where he gives a vivid impression of his experiences growing up in colonial India and his time spent in England. It helps to understand the underlying person better and, possibly, the root of their convictions.
2. In the first half of the book Nehru goes into excessive detail on the inner workings of the Indian National Congress, their varied committees and sub-committees and how they are organised. He provides a very vivid description of the bureaucratic machine. I am not saying these were not important topics to discuss, but the extent and length to which they were discussed was regrettable - especially given how few pages were set aside to discuss his pre-political life.
Overall, I am very grateful to have read this book and can recommend it wholeheartedly.
August 23, 2025
When I first picked up Nehru’s Autobiography during my student days, his legacy was still relevant, and he was respected, though his Licence Permit Raj was criticised. Times have changed, and with the new dispensation at the helm, he is being decried as the main enemy of India. This is not a surprise, as in a democracy, leaders are evaluated and judged in accordance with the prevailing ideology that holds power. Nehru’s contribution is seminal in maintaining the democratic ethos in post-independent India that created conditions even for his ideological opponents to come to power through fair elections. I thought of revisiting Nehru once more and reevaluate him in the light of my own understanding of the political and economic evolution of India. The gush of youthful idealism, when I first read it, hopefully mellowed, allowing a reasonable distance for an objective and unbiased evaluation.
By way of personal details, Nehru gives away very little. It is more an account of India under British rule and the distress it created in the lives of common people and the poor peasants. He charts the evolution of the freedom struggle from the early moderate approach to a radically new non-violent method to express dissent and non-cooperation under the leadership of Gandhiji. He brought down the armchair politics of moderates to the streets, transforming the nature of the movement from an elite occupation to a mass movement.
More than anything, the Autobiography is an impressive critique of Gandhiji and his philosophy. Temperamentally and philosophically, Nehru is very different from Gandhi. Though both had exposure to Western education, Nehru’s approach and analysis of any issue were through the prism of Western enlightenment. He was always in conflict within himself as regards the philosophy that was motivating the movement. He, however, could see the amazing results that Gandhiji's nonviolent resistance method could deliver. Its efficacy was beyond doubt. He realised the influence Gandhiji had on the imagination of the people, and his uncanny ability to sense their mood. He was a master at identifying the right psychological moment to strike. Though he believed in Gandhiji, many a time he was frustrated with him, especially with his religious symbolism, outdated economic theory and his emphasis on sin & salvation. Throughout the book, one can see Nehru trying to reconcile with Gandhian thought and trying to convince himself to adapt to his methods and judgments. Most importantly, the personal magnetism of Gandhiji, his integrity, honesty, conviction and his ability to win over an opponent made him surrender and repose implicit faith in him. He says the very presence of Gandhiji lightens and transforms the surroundings. Gandhiji towered over the national scene, and there was no alternative to his leadership as he personified the movement.
Nehru was acutely aware of the political developments shaping world events and was convinced that the political changes in other parts of the world had an influence on our struggle. The mood of world politics was anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, and left-wing politics, with all its faults & aberrations, was leading the struggle. Of the many shades of left-wing ideologies in vogue, Nehru was inclined to socialism. However, his socialism stops short of communism. Though he was sympathetic towards communism, being a democrat, he had his reservations about their doctrinaire approach, aggressive methods and their intolerance to dissent. Nehru, like many others, is a product of his times. While imperialism and colonialism were dominating the world, which were the offshoots of capitalism, socialism was the flavour of the times. This surely coloured his view and affected the political economy of post-independent India as he took charge of the country. While his socialist intentions were lofty, the outcomes were a mixed bag.
A man of deep reflection, Nehru constantly struggled within himself to reconcile and come to terms with many views and decisions that were not exactly to his liking. A sense of scepticism and self-doubt always accompanied him, leaving him to introspect continuously. Unable to align with communism and inclined to social democracy, he embraced a mixed economy for independent India, which resulted in suboptimal outcomes. Having lived most of my life in his socialist India, I am a witness to the insensitive, unaccountable and lethargic bureaucracy it created, leading to unimaginative and many a time ineffective public policy.
It is surprising how people develop blind spots when they are obsessed with a point of view. Nehru, while criticising the privileged class for not ceding their position without coercion, forgets that the people who replace them would morph themselves into a class and use extreme violence to retain the power and coerce people. Similarly, while he is convinced that compulsion is necessary for social change, he fails to recognise that once opted it has to be retained to perpetuate the change realised. This is the reality of communism post-Nehru in many parts of the world and the essential reason for its collapse. As I said, Nehru is a product of his times, and it is unfair to judge him from the present context. We should be grateful to him for not pushing the country into total communism by collectivising the agriculture with all the attendant miseries and oppressions.
His narrative was straight and simple and mostly reflective. He admits that it is difficult to open up completely and confesses that he tried to be as honest as possible. It is an absorbing read unless one has a personal dislike for him. What attracts one to Nehru is his love & vision for India, his liberal outlook, his commitment to democratic values & individual freedom, his aversion to obscurantism & ritual and his genuine secular credentials. He may have some human frailties and faltered and misjudged situations. But his commitment to India and its people is above board. One may differ with him ideologically, but casting aspersions on his patriotism is depravity.
By way of personal details, Nehru gives away very little. It is more an account of India under British rule and the distress it created in the lives of common people and the poor peasants. He charts the evolution of the freedom struggle from the early moderate approach to a radically new non-violent method to express dissent and non-cooperation under the leadership of Gandhiji. He brought down the armchair politics of moderates to the streets, transforming the nature of the movement from an elite occupation to a mass movement.
More than anything, the Autobiography is an impressive critique of Gandhiji and his philosophy. Temperamentally and philosophically, Nehru is very different from Gandhi. Though both had exposure to Western education, Nehru’s approach and analysis of any issue were through the prism of Western enlightenment. He was always in conflict within himself as regards the philosophy that was motivating the movement. He, however, could see the amazing results that Gandhiji's nonviolent resistance method could deliver. Its efficacy was beyond doubt. He realised the influence Gandhiji had on the imagination of the people, and his uncanny ability to sense their mood. He was a master at identifying the right psychological moment to strike. Though he believed in Gandhiji, many a time he was frustrated with him, especially with his religious symbolism, outdated economic theory and his emphasis on sin & salvation. Throughout the book, one can see Nehru trying to reconcile with Gandhian thought and trying to convince himself to adapt to his methods and judgments. Most importantly, the personal magnetism of Gandhiji, his integrity, honesty, conviction and his ability to win over an opponent made him surrender and repose implicit faith in him. He says the very presence of Gandhiji lightens and transforms the surroundings. Gandhiji towered over the national scene, and there was no alternative to his leadership as he personified the movement.
Nehru was acutely aware of the political developments shaping world events and was convinced that the political changes in other parts of the world had an influence on our struggle. The mood of world politics was anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, and left-wing politics, with all its faults & aberrations, was leading the struggle. Of the many shades of left-wing ideologies in vogue, Nehru was inclined to socialism. However, his socialism stops short of communism. Though he was sympathetic towards communism, being a democrat, he had his reservations about their doctrinaire approach, aggressive methods and their intolerance to dissent. Nehru, like many others, is a product of his times. While imperialism and colonialism were dominating the world, which were the offshoots of capitalism, socialism was the flavour of the times. This surely coloured his view and affected the political economy of post-independent India as he took charge of the country. While his socialist intentions were lofty, the outcomes were a mixed bag.
A man of deep reflection, Nehru constantly struggled within himself to reconcile and come to terms with many views and decisions that were not exactly to his liking. A sense of scepticism and self-doubt always accompanied him, leaving him to introspect continuously. Unable to align with communism and inclined to social democracy, he embraced a mixed economy for independent India, which resulted in suboptimal outcomes. Having lived most of my life in his socialist India, I am a witness to the insensitive, unaccountable and lethargic bureaucracy it created, leading to unimaginative and many a time ineffective public policy.
It is surprising how people develop blind spots when they are obsessed with a point of view. Nehru, while criticising the privileged class for not ceding their position without coercion, forgets that the people who replace them would morph themselves into a class and use extreme violence to retain the power and coerce people. Similarly, while he is convinced that compulsion is necessary for social change, he fails to recognise that once opted it has to be retained to perpetuate the change realised. This is the reality of communism post-Nehru in many parts of the world and the essential reason for its collapse. As I said, Nehru is a product of his times, and it is unfair to judge him from the present context. We should be grateful to him for not pushing the country into total communism by collectivising the agriculture with all the attendant miseries and oppressions.
His narrative was straight and simple and mostly reflective. He admits that it is difficult to open up completely and confesses that he tried to be as honest as possible. It is an absorbing read unless one has a personal dislike for him. What attracts one to Nehru is his love & vision for India, his liberal outlook, his commitment to democratic values & individual freedom, his aversion to obscurantism & ritual and his genuine secular credentials. He may have some human frailties and faltered and misjudged situations. But his commitment to India and its people is above board. One may differ with him ideologically, but casting aspersions on his patriotism is depravity.
December 23, 2017
Took me almost one month to complete this book. I have always been in love of the writing style of Nehru. The whole book is just the chronological description of various aspect of Indian freedom struggle. Nehru has shared his personal family life also. Well, in this autobiography, Nehru has presented Gandhiji as the hero of the Indian freedom struggle, while for the self he accepted the role of side hero. The only woman who has tremendous effect on him is Kamla Nehru, his wife. In this book, Nehru has accepted that he didn't agree with Gandhiji on many things like sex, morality, villeges, industry, fasting etc; yet he adored him very much. Nehru describes his life journey only till 1935-36, because after that he was freed from the jail and the manuscript was sent to publishers.
June 29, 2013
I started this book, with great anticipation to look at the pieces of Indo Pak history and condition of India (Pre Partitioned), though it give a great deal of light on the personality and life of Mr. Nehru, yet it seized to give a account of the situation.
It shows how hollow the thinking of those leaders of Congress. They were split and they all were having different dimensions, yet the course of history made them hero. I do give respect to the suffering they went into due to the cause of independence, but yet I am force to conclude that there were confused, and that is the reason still India and Pakistan are copping up with the situation.
It shows how hollow the thinking of those leaders of Congress. They were split and they all were having different dimensions, yet the course of history made them hero. I do give respect to the suffering they went into due to the cause of independence, but yet I am force to conclude that there were confused, and that is the reason still India and Pakistan are copping up with the situation.
February 21, 2016
هند در زیر فشار تزویر و دیکتاتوری دست و پا میزد و تازه اربابان ما دم از دموکراسی میزدند
دهقان هندی همیشه به خاطر قدرت فوق العاده تحمل رنج موجب حیرت جهانیان شده است و همیشه هم مصیبت و رنج به صورت قحطی ها , طغیان ها , بیماری ها و فقر نابود کننده دایمی برایش فراوان بوده است . وقتیکه دیگر هیچ کاری از دست دهقانان بر نیاید بدون هیچ شکایتی هزار هزار و حتی میلیون میلیون روی زمین دراز می کشند و می میرند . مرگ برایشان آسایش و فرار از رنج است .
زمانی که هر یک از ما لغت استقلال را به کار می بریم همه به یک چیز فکر می کنیم ؟ یا هر یک از ما طور دیگری می اندیشد ؟
(از متن کتاب )
دهقان هندی همیشه به خاطر قدرت فوق العاده تحمل رنج موجب حیرت جهانیان شده است و همیشه هم مصیبت و رنج به صورت قحطی ها , طغیان ها , بیماری ها و فقر نابود کننده دایمی برایش فراوان بوده است . وقتیکه دیگر هیچ کاری از دست دهقانان بر نیاید بدون هیچ شکایتی هزار هزار و حتی میلیون میلیون روی زمین دراز می کشند و می میرند . مرگ برایشان آسایش و فرار از رنج است .
زمانی که هر یک از ما لغت استقلال را به کار می بریم همه به یک چیز فکر می کنیم ؟ یا هر یک از ما طور دیگری می اندیشد ؟
(از متن کتاب )
February 8, 2011
ဘာသာေရး ေနာက္ခံကား အေရာင္ရင့္လွေသာ တိုင္းျပည္ႀကီးတစ္ခုမွ ဘာသာမဲ့ေခါင္းေဆာင္တစ္ဦး။
သို႔မဟုတ္ ဂ်၀ါဟလာ ေနရူး။
ေနရူးျပတိုက္ရွိ စာအုပ္စင္တြင္ ယန္းေပါဆတ္၏ Being and Nothingness စာအုပ္ႀကီးအား ခန္႔ခန္႔ျငားျငား ေတြ႕ခဲ့ရ၏။
သို႔မဟုတ္ ဂ်၀ါဟလာ ေနရူး။
ေနရူးျပတိုက္ရွိ စာအုပ္စင္တြင္ ယန္းေပါဆတ္၏ Being and Nothingness စာအုပ္ႀကီးအား ခန္႔ခန္႔ျငားျငား ေတြ႕ခဲ့ရ၏။
June 26, 2015
Its more on the history of India. beautifully written and Nehru has clearly mentioned the conflicts in ideology he had with Gandhi at times. A better way to learn history of India during the independence struggle.
July 19, 2024
I really enjoyed this book. With his great writing style and interesting observations on a wide range of things about India, Nehru can keep you hooked even today. I read it through a cynical lens too, since after all it was written by an active politician! It doesn't suffer too much for that. For the most part, he makes intellectually honest arguments about the topics he takes up. The only thing you could accuse him of is some errors of omission. Even though the book is all about serious issues and harsh events, Nehru somehow packages them up in elegant prose. You're transported to a different time and realm each time you pick it up, and it is quite unputdownable for long stretches!
A fuller version of this review is available at: https://www.librarything.com/work/106...
A chronicle of ideas
An example may illustrate better the nature of this book. Writing in Chapter 44 (Prison Humours) about being taken by car from one prison to another, Nehru says, "During that long midnight drive I mused over the relations of Englishmen and Indians". He describes how these two nations encounter each other only in adverse situations ("of ruler and ruled, of official and non-official, of those in authority and those who have to obey") leading to mutual distrust, dislike and ignorance. He admits that British officials couldn't help but be a bit partial to him: ".. .the fact that I had received my education in England… brought me nearer to them".
I felt that this continuous mingling of personal experiences with social, political currents is a hallmark of this book. Treating it as plain chronology would be to miss its essence (and Nehru would probably die of boredom in any attempt to write such an account). On every other page there is some reflection on larger questions: about practical politics and moral positions, about historical trends and the impact of different personalities, about aspects unique to India and things common to all of humanity.
An unbreakable spirit
Through those decades of ups and downs, I couldn't sense a single moment of giving up. There are periods of severe doubt regarding the future, and despair at the turn events are taking, but I felt like they were being viewed as temporary setbacks only. Some kind of subconscious re-assessment is instantly afoot, where the permanent reference point is an independent India, and the present moment can only be explained - or experienced even - in terms of how much it deviates from that inevitable destiny.
In Chapter 61 (Desolation), he is crushed when Gandhi withdraws the Civil Disobedience Movement, but is already thinking of the future: "Of the many hard lessons that I had learnt, the hardest and the most painful now faced me: that it is not possible in any vital matter to rely on anyone. One must journey through life alone". But perhaps the high point is Chapter 54 (The record of British rule). From within their prison cell he begins a long intellectual take down of their system of administration, and then starts planning how a new set of technocrats will replace the Imperial Civil Service! "Whenever India becomes free, and in a position to build her new life as she wants to, she will necessarily require the best of her sons and daughters for this purpose.. We shall want the help of many foreign experts in many departments of public activity, particularly in those which require special technical and scientific knowledge".
This is not the optimism that arises from data or opinion polls, or of the knowledge of political strategies and their outcomes. It felt more temperamental, like someone who has a bias for intense action at all times, and this urge for action overwhelms reason and inspires a belief that a better world is bound to come. He writes in Chapter 4 (Harrow and Cambridge) that "risk and adventure" fascinated him, and he liked to gamble in things where stakes were high.
The main stream of the freedom struggle
Nehru's analytical skills regarding people, political movements and their motivations shine through repeatedly. So much so that you suspect that it may not be an accident that in the preface he states that "this account is wholly one-sided, and inevitably, egotistical; many important happenings have been completely ignored and many important persons .. have hardly been mentioned". If you notice large gaps, you may excuse him due to this disclaimer. But wait a minute! Did he choose the autobiographical format precisely because it gave him a chance to use these formidable skills to cement his political position at a crucial time - without appearing too self-promotional?
To approach Nehru through a cynical lens alone would be to miss the wood for the trees. After all, he managed to stay in the thick of things, ultimately gained power and presided over a new political structure for many years. He was part of a movement that built a nation. A nation that many people still believe is a great idea and defend intensely. And a movement that is still studied by historians and political scientists - not as a cautionary tale but one worth admiring and learning from. That's not to say the movement didn't have other strands and currents. Those show up in this autobiography too.
In Chapter 35 (Karachi Congress), Nehru writes that a young man known for being a violent revolutionary (Chandrashekhar Azad) turned up at his house in Allahabad one day and complained he was in a fix as he was finding it increasingly hard to evade the British police. Sadly, Azad was to meet his end a few weeks later, in a police shoot-out. In another chapter (21: In Europe), Nehru writes about meeting former revolutionaries who were living in exile in Europe. Many were part of the "Berlin Committee" group that had formed during the First World War. They were from an era of the freedom struggle before the mass based, non-violent approach was proposed by Gandhi and started showing signs of success. Nehru’s accounts of his interactions with these people and character sketches are laced with remorse, and surprisingly, dry humor.
His tone towards these other strands ranges from the sad (as in the case of violent revolutionaries), to exasperated (the Liberals) and harshly critical (religion-centred politics). Strangely there's very little in this book on caste-based issues, including the Gandhi-Ambedkar Poona pact of 1932.
Nehru remains ever worried about the opportunity costs of what he regards as ill-timed or foolhardy political actions, and does not spare even Gandhi (for example when he embarks on a fast unto death in 1932). Chapter 48 (The Dual Policy of British Government) provides a hint about the level of his concern: "the real reason why the Congress and other non-official organisations cannot do much for social reform goes deeper. We suffer from the disease of nationalism, and that absorbs our attention and it will continue to do so till we get political freedom. As Bernard Shaw has said: A conquered nation is like a man with cancer; he can think of nothing else"
India and Swaraj
It may be necessary to consider what "India" meant to people of his generation. It is likely that the word did not bring to mind a firm political entity and attendant aspirations or disappointments as it does today. It would have been a nebulous entity of the future; some amalgamation of this large population spread across a landscape made up of hundreds of kingdoms and every type of social diversity. In Chapter 53 (India: Old and New), Nehru brings in one popular conception: "Mother India, a beautiful lady, very old but every youthful in appearance, sad-eyed and forlorn, cruelly treated by aliens and outsiders, and calling upon her children to protect her. Some such picture rouses the emotion of hundreds of thousands and drives them to action and sacrifice. And yet India is in the main the peasant and the worker, not beautiful to look at, for poverty is not beautiful". To Nehru, India is inseparable from its current pitiable state.
"Swaraj" was another word swirling around amorphously at the time. In Chapter 11 (1921 and the First Imprisonment) he writes, "Each one of us probably interpreted the word in his or her own way. To most of the younger men it meant political independence, or something like it, and a democratic form of government, and we said so in our public utterances. Many of us also thought that inevitably this would result in a lessening of the burdens that crushed the workers and the peasantry. But it was obvious that to most of our leaders Swaraj meant something much less than independence. Gandhi was delightfully vague on the subject...".
A yearning for political freedom
Unlike leaders of earlier generations Nehru has no patience with British rule and rarely in doubt as to whether India is a country. Growing up, he would hear his family discuss the racially discriminatory practices of the British and was "filled with resentment against the alien rulers of my country". This would have rankled since his father lived alongside British officials in Allahabad's Civil Lines area, and in earlier generations his family had worked in the court of Mughal kings. His subsequent education in Harrow and Cambridge meant he could see through their claims of racial superiority and their so-called civilizing misson.
In contrast, his father Motilal modifies his opinion about British rule in slow, incremental steps, until eventually he throws in his lot with Gandhi and starts going to jail. Writing about a time before 1919, Nehru says of his father: "Each step forward meant for him a hard and bitter struggle in his mind. And when that step was taken after a struggle with a part of himself, there was no going back" (Chapter 5: Back home and War time politics in India). The Jallianwalla Bagh massacre had a "profound effect" on Motilal's political outlook.
Beyond traditional nationalism
In Chapter 53 (India: Old and new), he gives a brief overview of the history of Indian nationalism (with some comparisons to Italy), and insists that there exists an element of cultural unity across this land even though political unity was only sporadic. With respect to the present and the future, he says India will have to adopt many elements of the capitalist West, because "the West brings science, and science brings food for the hungry millions". But from the West we should also learn socialism, co-operation and service to community.
In Chapter 54 (The record of British rule), he positions India as part of a larger whole: ".. the changes that have taken place in India during the last century have been world changes common to most countries in the East and West". He argues that the British "prevented our industrial growth, and thus delayed our political growth, and preserved all the out-of-date feudal and other relics they could find in the country".
Chapter 19 (Communalism Rampant) gives a flavour of the communal tensions in the 1920's, who benefits from them and the British policy of divide and rule. Chapter 56 (Communalism and reaction) is a masterclass in socio-political analysis. He describes the very different attitudes towards the British administration between the Hindu and Muslim intelligentsia after the 1857 revolt, how Syed Ahmad Khan sought to change the standoffish nature of Muslims towards the British, and later how their elite struggled to stick to the Congress' nationalist path and repeatedly got co-opted by the British. In his view, communal politics coincides with the interests of landlords and the upper middle class. The landlords generally go along with the British as long as they don't lose their wealth, and between them and the upper middle class try to garner all the electoral seats and government jobs. The average worker and peasant had nothing in common with these sorts of folks beyond his religion, and kept getting deceived into their schemes.
One wonders whether Nehru had a blind spot here. Did he miss noticing the primacy of religion for many of these people, and trample all over their reluctance to sign up to be part of some grand, unchartered political project? In the 1920’s, a politically united India with its benefits of "Swaraj" was nowhere on the horizon. So did the "feudal princes", "feudal landlords", "political reactionaries", "reactionary communal bodies", "vested interests" (all labels he uses for these political opponents), have a common cause with the Liberal Party in wanting to take things slow or avoid change altogether? History tells us that Nehru's camp had their way, but this autobiography is probably not the place to find an accurate representation of his opponents’ concerns.
I’ve listed many details in these last few paras to justify my impression of Nehru’s nationalism: with the promises of freedom and democracy, with his desire to bring the benefits of modern science and "its offspring" to India, with his advocacy of socialism, and apprehension of what was going on in the India as part of larger worldwide trends, I think Nehru represents the culmination of a successful transition from old fashioned ethnic or territorial nationalism to "modernity" (which in his times would have meant largely adopting ideas from the West). As history tells us, the territorial boundaries of the eventual Indian nation turned out to be influenced by chance and contingent events, but the ideology that was used to bind these inhabitants together during the freedom struggle remains as the glue. Unities across caste, region and language had to be consciously forged across a large and diverse landscape. And the one place where it just wouldn't take shape, left behind the wreckage of Partition.
Second fiddle to Gandhi
For all his convictions, zeal and high-sounding proclamations, Nehru is subservient to Gandhi when it comes to any kind of mass political agitation. He is in awe of Gandhi and has great personal respect for him, despite many ideological differences. Writing about Gandhi's intimate connect with the Indian masses (Chapter 27: Thunder in the air), ".. he has repeatedly toured India and got to know every bit of the vast country .. I do not think any other human being has ever travelled about India as much".
Non-violence and violence
The decade of 1920s all the way to the Dandi March in 1930 is quite eventful. Nehru sees Gandhi's Satyagraha techniques from up close: from the aborted Non-Cooperation Movement of 1921 to the high point that was the Dandi March. In 1921, he is just happy to have an effective method of resistance, with a bonus that it made them feel more ethical and self-righteous than anyone who would oppose them. But the optimism lasted only a short while, as the Chauri Chaura violence put an end to that movement. In Chapter 12 (Non-violence and the doctrine of the sword), Nehru expresses his disappointment about the effectiveness of this approach. His own experience of getting whacked by the colonial police happens during the Simon Commission of 1930 (Chapter 25: Experience of Lathi charges): "Long training and discipline help and I did not raise a hand, except to protect my face from a blow"
In Chapter 63 (Conversion or Compulsion), he goes interrogates Gandhi's methods. He admits that it has so far not freed India from British imperialism, nor removed any social evils, but to India's millions it has given "character, strength and self-reliance - precious gifts without which any progress, political or social, is difficult to achive or retain". He is critical of efforts to equate non-violence with truth and goodness itself. "Violence itself, though bad, cannot be considered intrinsically immoral. There are shades and grades of it…". He discusses the need for a coercive state, why power might have to be countered with power, why relations between groups are qualitatively different from relations between individual humans, and so on. This chapter feels timeless.
Nowhere does Nehru bring up violence as an option for him personally. Given his father's lawyer background and his elite upbringing, it wouldn't have been a natural step for him. In Chapter 18 (My father and Gandhiji), he writes, "Those who believe in terroristic violence are completely out of court in the modern world and are considered ineffective and out of date." In Chapter 24 (Return to India and plunge back into politics), he attributes Bhagat Singh's sudden and widespread popularity not to the violent aspect of his actions, but what those actions symbolized: a vindication of "the honour of Lala Lajpat Rai, and through him, of the nation".
Curious omissions
I felt that other popular names got short shrift: Vallabhbhai Patel, Subhas Chandra Bose and Ambedkar to pick some. Regarding Patel, Nehru writes in praise of the Bardoli sayagraha of 1928 (Chapter 24: Return to India and plunge back into politics), "... under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. It was gallantly carried through to the admiration of the rest of India…Bardoli became a sign and symbol of hope and strength and victory to the Indian peasant". But beyond straightforward descriptions like this, there is no mention in this book of deeper interactions with any of them.
Religion
Chapter 47 (What is religion?) is a phenomenal essay both in content and context, in my opinion. Being never religious himself, Nehru would have only encountered it in undesirable and degraded forms within the politics of the freedom struggle. Early in his political career (Chapter 10: Non Co-operation), he is miffed at the prominence religious leaders are being given inside this movement: "Much that Moulvies and Maulanas and Swamis and the like said in their public addresses seemed to me most unfortunate. Their history and sociology and economics appeared to me all wrong, and the religious twist that was given to everything prevented all clear thinking"
So it is not surprising that he rails against "organized religion" and in particular its failure to check large atrocities. He cites the problem of religion meaning different things to different people, provides his own definition of it, whether inner development precedes material wellbeing or vice-versa, whether religion provides a safe anchorage from doubt and mental conflict and so on. Astonishingly, he again sidesteps the issue of caste altogether.
Conclusion
I feel I've only scratched the surface of this book in this review. In its central character, its timespan and the events it covers it can evoke a wide range of thoughts and feelings, especially among but not limited to Indians. Its elegant prose and occasional snippets of poetry feels like Nehru wryly mocking us that there is an embarrassment of riches to be had here.
A fuller version of this review is available at: https://www.librarything.com/work/106...
A chronicle of ideas
An example may illustrate better the nature of this book. Writing in Chapter 44 (Prison Humours) about being taken by car from one prison to another, Nehru says, "During that long midnight drive I mused over the relations of Englishmen and Indians". He describes how these two nations encounter each other only in adverse situations ("of ruler and ruled, of official and non-official, of those in authority and those who have to obey") leading to mutual distrust, dislike and ignorance. He admits that British officials couldn't help but be a bit partial to him: ".. .the fact that I had received my education in England… brought me nearer to them".
I felt that this continuous mingling of personal experiences with social, political currents is a hallmark of this book. Treating it as plain chronology would be to miss its essence (and Nehru would probably die of boredom in any attempt to write such an account). On every other page there is some reflection on larger questions: about practical politics and moral positions, about historical trends and the impact of different personalities, about aspects unique to India and things common to all of humanity.
An unbreakable spirit
Through those decades of ups and downs, I couldn't sense a single moment of giving up. There are periods of severe doubt regarding the future, and despair at the turn events are taking, but I felt like they were being viewed as temporary setbacks only. Some kind of subconscious re-assessment is instantly afoot, where the permanent reference point is an independent India, and the present moment can only be explained - or experienced even - in terms of how much it deviates from that inevitable destiny.
In Chapter 61 (Desolation), he is crushed when Gandhi withdraws the Civil Disobedience Movement, but is already thinking of the future: "Of the many hard lessons that I had learnt, the hardest and the most painful now faced me: that it is not possible in any vital matter to rely on anyone. One must journey through life alone". But perhaps the high point is Chapter 54 (The record of British rule). From within their prison cell he begins a long intellectual take down of their system of administration, and then starts planning how a new set of technocrats will replace the Imperial Civil Service! "Whenever India becomes free, and in a position to build her new life as she wants to, she will necessarily require the best of her sons and daughters for this purpose.. We shall want the help of many foreign experts in many departments of public activity, particularly in those which require special technical and scientific knowledge".
This is not the optimism that arises from data or opinion polls, or of the knowledge of political strategies and their outcomes. It felt more temperamental, like someone who has a bias for intense action at all times, and this urge for action overwhelms reason and inspires a belief that a better world is bound to come. He writes in Chapter 4 (Harrow and Cambridge) that "risk and adventure" fascinated him, and he liked to gamble in things where stakes were high.
The main stream of the freedom struggle
Nehru's analytical skills regarding people, political movements and their motivations shine through repeatedly. So much so that you suspect that it may not be an accident that in the preface he states that "this account is wholly one-sided, and inevitably, egotistical; many important happenings have been completely ignored and many important persons .. have hardly been mentioned". If you notice large gaps, you may excuse him due to this disclaimer. But wait a minute! Did he choose the autobiographical format precisely because it gave him a chance to use these formidable skills to cement his political position at a crucial time - without appearing too self-promotional?
To approach Nehru through a cynical lens alone would be to miss the wood for the trees. After all, he managed to stay in the thick of things, ultimately gained power and presided over a new political structure for many years. He was part of a movement that built a nation. A nation that many people still believe is a great idea and defend intensely. And a movement that is still studied by historians and political scientists - not as a cautionary tale but one worth admiring and learning from. That's not to say the movement didn't have other strands and currents. Those show up in this autobiography too.
In Chapter 35 (Karachi Congress), Nehru writes that a young man known for being a violent revolutionary (Chandrashekhar Azad) turned up at his house in Allahabad one day and complained he was in a fix as he was finding it increasingly hard to evade the British police. Sadly, Azad was to meet his end a few weeks later, in a police shoot-out. In another chapter (21: In Europe), Nehru writes about meeting former revolutionaries who were living in exile in Europe. Many were part of the "Berlin Committee" group that had formed during the First World War. They were from an era of the freedom struggle before the mass based, non-violent approach was proposed by Gandhi and started showing signs of success. Nehru’s accounts of his interactions with these people and character sketches are laced with remorse, and surprisingly, dry humor.
His tone towards these other strands ranges from the sad (as in the case of violent revolutionaries), to exasperated (the Liberals) and harshly critical (religion-centred politics). Strangely there's very little in this book on caste-based issues, including the Gandhi-Ambedkar Poona pact of 1932.
Nehru remains ever worried about the opportunity costs of what he regards as ill-timed or foolhardy political actions, and does not spare even Gandhi (for example when he embarks on a fast unto death in 1932). Chapter 48 (The Dual Policy of British Government) provides a hint about the level of his concern: "the real reason why the Congress and other non-official organisations cannot do much for social reform goes deeper. We suffer from the disease of nationalism, and that absorbs our attention and it will continue to do so till we get political freedom. As Bernard Shaw has said: A conquered nation is like a man with cancer; he can think of nothing else"
India and Swaraj
It may be necessary to consider what "India" meant to people of his generation. It is likely that the word did not bring to mind a firm political entity and attendant aspirations or disappointments as it does today. It would have been a nebulous entity of the future; some amalgamation of this large population spread across a landscape made up of hundreds of kingdoms and every type of social diversity. In Chapter 53 (India: Old and New), Nehru brings in one popular conception: "Mother India, a beautiful lady, very old but every youthful in appearance, sad-eyed and forlorn, cruelly treated by aliens and outsiders, and calling upon her children to protect her. Some such picture rouses the emotion of hundreds of thousands and drives them to action and sacrifice. And yet India is in the main the peasant and the worker, not beautiful to look at, for poverty is not beautiful". To Nehru, India is inseparable from its current pitiable state.
"Swaraj" was another word swirling around amorphously at the time. In Chapter 11 (1921 and the First Imprisonment) he writes, "Each one of us probably interpreted the word in his or her own way. To most of the younger men it meant political independence, or something like it, and a democratic form of government, and we said so in our public utterances. Many of us also thought that inevitably this would result in a lessening of the burdens that crushed the workers and the peasantry. But it was obvious that to most of our leaders Swaraj meant something much less than independence. Gandhi was delightfully vague on the subject...".
A yearning for political freedom
Unlike leaders of earlier generations Nehru has no patience with British rule and rarely in doubt as to whether India is a country. Growing up, he would hear his family discuss the racially discriminatory practices of the British and was "filled with resentment against the alien rulers of my country". This would have rankled since his father lived alongside British officials in Allahabad's Civil Lines area, and in earlier generations his family had worked in the court of Mughal kings. His subsequent education in Harrow and Cambridge meant he could see through their claims of racial superiority and their so-called civilizing misson.
In contrast, his father Motilal modifies his opinion about British rule in slow, incremental steps, until eventually he throws in his lot with Gandhi and starts going to jail. Writing about a time before 1919, Nehru says of his father: "Each step forward meant for him a hard and bitter struggle in his mind. And when that step was taken after a struggle with a part of himself, there was no going back" (Chapter 5: Back home and War time politics in India). The Jallianwalla Bagh massacre had a "profound effect" on Motilal's political outlook.
Beyond traditional nationalism
In Chapter 53 (India: Old and new), he gives a brief overview of the history of Indian nationalism (with some comparisons to Italy), and insists that there exists an element of cultural unity across this land even though political unity was only sporadic. With respect to the present and the future, he says India will have to adopt many elements of the capitalist West, because "the West brings science, and science brings food for the hungry millions". But from the West we should also learn socialism, co-operation and service to community.
In Chapter 54 (The record of British rule), he positions India as part of a larger whole: ".. the changes that have taken place in India during the last century have been world changes common to most countries in the East and West". He argues that the British "prevented our industrial growth, and thus delayed our political growth, and preserved all the out-of-date feudal and other relics they could find in the country".
Chapter 19 (Communalism Rampant) gives a flavour of the communal tensions in the 1920's, who benefits from them and the British policy of divide and rule. Chapter 56 (Communalism and reaction) is a masterclass in socio-political analysis. He describes the very different attitudes towards the British administration between the Hindu and Muslim intelligentsia after the 1857 revolt, how Syed Ahmad Khan sought to change the standoffish nature of Muslims towards the British, and later how their elite struggled to stick to the Congress' nationalist path and repeatedly got co-opted by the British. In his view, communal politics coincides with the interests of landlords and the upper middle class. The landlords generally go along with the British as long as they don't lose their wealth, and between them and the upper middle class try to garner all the electoral seats and government jobs. The average worker and peasant had nothing in common with these sorts of folks beyond his religion, and kept getting deceived into their schemes.
One wonders whether Nehru had a blind spot here. Did he miss noticing the primacy of religion for many of these people, and trample all over their reluctance to sign up to be part of some grand, unchartered political project? In the 1920’s, a politically united India with its benefits of "Swaraj" was nowhere on the horizon. So did the "feudal princes", "feudal landlords", "political reactionaries", "reactionary communal bodies", "vested interests" (all labels he uses for these political opponents), have a common cause with the Liberal Party in wanting to take things slow or avoid change altogether? History tells us that Nehru's camp had their way, but this autobiography is probably not the place to find an accurate representation of his opponents’ concerns.
I’ve listed many details in these last few paras to justify my impression of Nehru’s nationalism: with the promises of freedom and democracy, with his desire to bring the benefits of modern science and "its offspring" to India, with his advocacy of socialism, and apprehension of what was going on in the India as part of larger worldwide trends, I think Nehru represents the culmination of a successful transition from old fashioned ethnic or territorial nationalism to "modernity" (which in his times would have meant largely adopting ideas from the West). As history tells us, the territorial boundaries of the eventual Indian nation turned out to be influenced by chance and contingent events, but the ideology that was used to bind these inhabitants together during the freedom struggle remains as the glue. Unities across caste, region and language had to be consciously forged across a large and diverse landscape. And the one place where it just wouldn't take shape, left behind the wreckage of Partition.
Second fiddle to Gandhi
For all his convictions, zeal and high-sounding proclamations, Nehru is subservient to Gandhi when it comes to any kind of mass political agitation. He is in awe of Gandhi and has great personal respect for him, despite many ideological differences. Writing about Gandhi's intimate connect with the Indian masses (Chapter 27: Thunder in the air), ".. he has repeatedly toured India and got to know every bit of the vast country .. I do not think any other human being has ever travelled about India as much".
Non-violence and violence
The decade of 1920s all the way to the Dandi March in 1930 is quite eventful. Nehru sees Gandhi's Satyagraha techniques from up close: from the aborted Non-Cooperation Movement of 1921 to the high point that was the Dandi March. In 1921, he is just happy to have an effective method of resistance, with a bonus that it made them feel more ethical and self-righteous than anyone who would oppose them. But the optimism lasted only a short while, as the Chauri Chaura violence put an end to that movement. In Chapter 12 (Non-violence and the doctrine of the sword), Nehru expresses his disappointment about the effectiveness of this approach. His own experience of getting whacked by the colonial police happens during the Simon Commission of 1930 (Chapter 25: Experience of Lathi charges): "Long training and discipline help and I did not raise a hand, except to protect my face from a blow"
In Chapter 63 (Conversion or Compulsion), he goes interrogates Gandhi's methods. He admits that it has so far not freed India from British imperialism, nor removed any social evils, but to India's millions it has given "character, strength and self-reliance - precious gifts without which any progress, political or social, is difficult to achive or retain". He is critical of efforts to equate non-violence with truth and goodness itself. "Violence itself, though bad, cannot be considered intrinsically immoral. There are shades and grades of it…". He discusses the need for a coercive state, why power might have to be countered with power, why relations between groups are qualitatively different from relations between individual humans, and so on. This chapter feels timeless.
Nowhere does Nehru bring up violence as an option for him personally. Given his father's lawyer background and his elite upbringing, it wouldn't have been a natural step for him. In Chapter 18 (My father and Gandhiji), he writes, "Those who believe in terroristic violence are completely out of court in the modern world and are considered ineffective and out of date." In Chapter 24 (Return to India and plunge back into politics), he attributes Bhagat Singh's sudden and widespread popularity not to the violent aspect of his actions, but what those actions symbolized: a vindication of "the honour of Lala Lajpat Rai, and through him, of the nation".
Curious omissions
I felt that other popular names got short shrift: Vallabhbhai Patel, Subhas Chandra Bose and Ambedkar to pick some. Regarding Patel, Nehru writes in praise of the Bardoli sayagraha of 1928 (Chapter 24: Return to India and plunge back into politics), "... under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. It was gallantly carried through to the admiration of the rest of India…Bardoli became a sign and symbol of hope and strength and victory to the Indian peasant". But beyond straightforward descriptions like this, there is no mention in this book of deeper interactions with any of them.
Religion
Chapter 47 (What is religion?) is a phenomenal essay both in content and context, in my opinion. Being never religious himself, Nehru would have only encountered it in undesirable and degraded forms within the politics of the freedom struggle. Early in his political career (Chapter 10: Non Co-operation), he is miffed at the prominence religious leaders are being given inside this movement: "Much that Moulvies and Maulanas and Swamis and the like said in their public addresses seemed to me most unfortunate. Their history and sociology and economics appeared to me all wrong, and the religious twist that was given to everything prevented all clear thinking"
So it is not surprising that he rails against "organized religion" and in particular its failure to check large atrocities. He cites the problem of religion meaning different things to different people, provides his own definition of it, whether inner development precedes material wellbeing or vice-versa, whether religion provides a safe anchorage from doubt and mental conflict and so on. Astonishingly, he again sidesteps the issue of caste altogether.
Conclusion
I feel I've only scratched the surface of this book in this review. In its central character, its timespan and the events it covers it can evoke a wide range of thoughts and feelings, especially among but not limited to Indians. Its elegant prose and occasional snippets of poetry feels like Nehru wryly mocking us that there is an embarrassment of riches to be had here.
December 5, 2024
Jawaharlal Nehru's "An Autobiography: Toward Freedom" is a masterful blend of personal reflection and historical narrative, offering readers a profound insight into India's fight for independence and Nehru's role in it. His writing is eloquent and thought-provoking, revealing his intellectual rigour and deep commitment to his country's cause. Nehru's prose is not just a recounting of events but a philosophical exploration of the ideals and principles that guided him.
One of the most striking aspects of the book is Nehru's honesty. He does not shy away from discussing his doubts, mistakes, and the complex dynamics within the Indian National Congress. This candidness adds depth to the autobiography, making it a more relatable and engaging read. Nehru's willingness to expose his vulnerabilities and the internal conflicts within the Congress party provides a nuanced understanding of the independence movement.
Nehru's global view on politics is particularly enlightening. His geopolitical views, his influence or friendship with foreign politicians, and his perspectives on colonialism, culture, and the socio-economic challenges of the time are woven seamlessly into the narrative. His interactions with global leaders and his observations on international affairs highlight his vision for a free and progressive India that is part of a larger global community.
The book also delves into Nehru's criticism and ideological clash with Mahatma Gandhi. Despite their shared goal of independence, Nehru and Gandhi often had differing approaches and philosophies. Nehru's vision of a modern, secular, and industrialized India sometimes conflicted with Gandhi's emphasis on traditional village life and self-reliance. These ideological differences are explored with respect and depth, showcasing the complexity of their relationship and the broader independence movement.
Nehru's encouragement and support for women are evident throughout his narrative. He held progressive views on gender equality and believed in women's empowerment. His admiration and respect for female colleagues, and his support for his wife, Kamala Nehru, are particularly noteworthy. Nehru's acknowledgement of the contributions of women in the independence movement and his advocacy for their rights reflect his forward-thinking and inclusive vision for India's future.
Nehru's struggles are another key theme in the autobiography. His experiences of imprisonment, his separation from his family, and the emotional toll of the freedom struggle are recounted with poignant detail. These personal anecdotes provide a humanizing glimpse into the life of a leader often seen through the lens of his public persona.
Throughout the book, Nehru's unwavering and unyielding mindset about India and its future shines through. Every chapter shows his belief in India's potential and his dedication to its progress. Nehru's vision for a free, democratic, and prosperous India is a testament to his enduring legacy and his profound impact on the nation's history.
Overall, "An Autobiography: Toward Freedom" is a compelling read that offers a rich and multifaceted portrait of Jawaharlal Nehru and the Indian independence movement. It is a valuable historical document and an inspiring narrative of one man's dedication to his country's freedom and future.
I will end my review with a thought-proving quote by him (which is prevalent in today's politics even after a century):
"The questions that a country presses are a measure of that country's political development. Often the failure of that country is due to the fact that it has not put the right question to itself.. Our wasting of our time and energy and temper over the communal distribution of seats, our forming parties on the communal award and carrying on a sterile controversy about it to the exclusion of vital problems, is the measure of our political backwardness."
One of the most striking aspects of the book is Nehru's honesty. He does not shy away from discussing his doubts, mistakes, and the complex dynamics within the Indian National Congress. This candidness adds depth to the autobiography, making it a more relatable and engaging read. Nehru's willingness to expose his vulnerabilities and the internal conflicts within the Congress party provides a nuanced understanding of the independence movement.
Nehru's global view on politics is particularly enlightening. His geopolitical views, his influence or friendship with foreign politicians, and his perspectives on colonialism, culture, and the socio-economic challenges of the time are woven seamlessly into the narrative. His interactions with global leaders and his observations on international affairs highlight his vision for a free and progressive India that is part of a larger global community.
The book also delves into Nehru's criticism and ideological clash with Mahatma Gandhi. Despite their shared goal of independence, Nehru and Gandhi often had differing approaches and philosophies. Nehru's vision of a modern, secular, and industrialized India sometimes conflicted with Gandhi's emphasis on traditional village life and self-reliance. These ideological differences are explored with respect and depth, showcasing the complexity of their relationship and the broader independence movement.
Nehru's encouragement and support for women are evident throughout his narrative. He held progressive views on gender equality and believed in women's empowerment. His admiration and respect for female colleagues, and his support for his wife, Kamala Nehru, are particularly noteworthy. Nehru's acknowledgement of the contributions of women in the independence movement and his advocacy for their rights reflect his forward-thinking and inclusive vision for India's future.
Nehru's struggles are another key theme in the autobiography. His experiences of imprisonment, his separation from his family, and the emotional toll of the freedom struggle are recounted with poignant detail. These personal anecdotes provide a humanizing glimpse into the life of a leader often seen through the lens of his public persona.
Throughout the book, Nehru's unwavering and unyielding mindset about India and its future shines through. Every chapter shows his belief in India's potential and his dedication to its progress. Nehru's vision for a free, democratic, and prosperous India is a testament to his enduring legacy and his profound impact on the nation's history.
Overall, "An Autobiography: Toward Freedom" is a compelling read that offers a rich and multifaceted portrait of Jawaharlal Nehru and the Indian independence movement. It is a valuable historical document and an inspiring narrative of one man's dedication to his country's freedom and future.
I will end my review with a thought-proving quote by him (which is prevalent in today's politics even after a century):
"The questions that a country presses are a measure of that country's political development. Often the failure of that country is due to the fact that it has not put the right question to itself.. Our wasting of our time and energy and temper over the communal distribution of seats, our forming parties on the communal award and carrying on a sterile controversy about it to the exclusion of vital problems, is the measure of our political backwardness."
March 21, 2025
If I could describe Jawaharlal Nehru's autobiography in one word, it would be: human. His inclinations towards just economic systems, his insistence on freedom of thought, his fascination with nature, and his self-awareness each create a picture of a man that seems more real than Gandhi ever could be.
What I mean by that is, firstly, reading Gandhi's autobiography and then Nehru's, one is surely to suffer some form of whiplash. Gandhi's writing, as I explain in my review of his work, is very lawyerly, it's not very artful. It's direct, and seeks only to inform. Nehru, on the other hand, is an amazing writer. Not only does his interpolation of poetry (both his own and of others) indicate a literary knowledge, but also the way his sentences flow makes for a thoroughly enjoyable read; much more so than Gandhi's which felt like a textbook at times.
Furthermore, Gandhi's thought processes are so akin to saintliness that they lose much of their human aspects. His ideas of the real world are derived from the spiritual world, so he inherently carries religious sensibilities in his politics. Yet Nehru isn't so, his thoughts are not derivative of the Bhagavad Gita, but of logic and reason. His thoughts can be followed, whereas Gandhi seems to make a few leaps of judgement that rely on spirituality. This distances him intellectually, but on a personal level too, for he has a "holier than thou" aura. That's not a slight on Gandhi's part, rather it's literally true: I wouldn't argue that Gandhi is NOT holier than I.
Then read this excerpt from Nehru's writing, where he reflects on why he's popular as an activist: "Not because of intellectual attainments, for they were not extraordinary, and, in any event, they do not make for popularity. Not because of so-called sacrifices, for it is patent that hundreds and thousands in our own day in India have suffered infinitely more, even to the point of the last sacrifice. My reputation as a hero is entirely a bogus one, and I do not feel at all heroic, and generally the heroic attitude or the dramatic pose in life strikes me as silly. As for romance, I should say that I am the least romantic of individuals. It is true that I have some physical and mental courage, but the background of that is probably pride: personal, group, and national, and a reluctance to be coerced into anything."
Even his humbleness isn't unreasonably humble so as to be prideful. He's simply humble, he's down-to-earth, he's human. So if I could make one final stipulation about Nehru, I would say he is the embodiment of National Movement. Moreso than Gandhi, for Gandhi was too stuck in his religious ideals to imagine a world truly free. Nehru had the rationality to do so.
What I mean by that is, firstly, reading Gandhi's autobiography and then Nehru's, one is surely to suffer some form of whiplash. Gandhi's writing, as I explain in my review of his work, is very lawyerly, it's not very artful. It's direct, and seeks only to inform. Nehru, on the other hand, is an amazing writer. Not only does his interpolation of poetry (both his own and of others) indicate a literary knowledge, but also the way his sentences flow makes for a thoroughly enjoyable read; much more so than Gandhi's which felt like a textbook at times.
Furthermore, Gandhi's thought processes are so akin to saintliness that they lose much of their human aspects. His ideas of the real world are derived from the spiritual world, so he inherently carries religious sensibilities in his politics. Yet Nehru isn't so, his thoughts are not derivative of the Bhagavad Gita, but of logic and reason. His thoughts can be followed, whereas Gandhi seems to make a few leaps of judgement that rely on spirituality. This distances him intellectually, but on a personal level too, for he has a "holier than thou" aura. That's not a slight on Gandhi's part, rather it's literally true: I wouldn't argue that Gandhi is NOT holier than I.
Then read this excerpt from Nehru's writing, where he reflects on why he's popular as an activist: "Not because of intellectual attainments, for they were not extraordinary, and, in any event, they do not make for popularity. Not because of so-called sacrifices, for it is patent that hundreds and thousands in our own day in India have suffered infinitely more, even to the point of the last sacrifice. My reputation as a hero is entirely a bogus one, and I do not feel at all heroic, and generally the heroic attitude or the dramatic pose in life strikes me as silly. As for romance, I should say that I am the least romantic of individuals. It is true that I have some physical and mental courage, but the background of that is probably pride: personal, group, and national, and a reluctance to be coerced into anything."
Even his humbleness isn't unreasonably humble so as to be prideful. He's simply humble, he's down-to-earth, he's human. So if I could make one final stipulation about Nehru, I would say he is the embodiment of National Movement. Moreso than Gandhi, for Gandhi was too stuck in his religious ideals to imagine a world truly free. Nehru had the rationality to do so.
September 10, 2017
There is a chapter on Jawaharlal Nehru, subtitled as Dharma, the Self's Aspiration, and Artha, the Self's Purpose, in the book Righteous Republic: The Political Foundations of Modern India by Ananya Vajpeyi. She uses a curiously accurate term for Pandit Nehru, as someone who was 'a poet of nationhood.'
I was reminded of the term while reading his autobiography, and particularly so in its epilogue. Here's a telling excerpt from the same.
'...I've become quite a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere...but India clings to me, as she does to all her children, in innumerable ways....They're both part of me, and though they help both in the East and the West, they also create in me a feeling of spiritual loneliness not only in public activities but in life itself. I'm a stranger and alien in the West. I cannot be of it. But in my own country also, sometimes, I have an exile's feeling.
The distant mountains seem easy of access and climbing the top beckons, but as one approaches, difficulties emerge, and the higher one goes, the more laborious becomes the journey and the summit recedes into the clouds. Yet the climbing is worth the effort and has its own joy and satisfaction. Perhaps it is the struggle that gives value to life, not so much the ultimate result. Often it is difficult to know which is the right path, it is easier to know sometime what is not right, and to avoid that is something after all. If I may quote, with all humility, the last words of the great Socrates: "I know nothing what death is - it may be a good thing and I'm not afraid of it. But I do know it is a bad thing to desert one's past, and I prefer what may be good, to what I know to be bad."
The years I've spent in prison! Sitting alone, wrapped in my thoughts, how many seasons I've seen go by, following each other into oblivion? How many moons I've watched wax and wane, and the pageant of the stars moving along inexorably and majestically! How many yesterdays of my youth lie buried here, and sometimes I see the ghosts of those dead yesterdays rise up, bringing poignant memories and whispering to me: "Was it worthwhile?" There is no hesitation about the answer...my major decisions in public affairs would remain untouched. Indeed, I couldn't vary them, for they were stronger than myself, and a force beyond my control drove me to them.'
I was reminded of the term while reading his autobiography, and particularly so in its epilogue. Here's a telling excerpt from the same.
'...I've become quite a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere...but India clings to me, as she does to all her children, in innumerable ways....They're both part of me, and though they help both in the East and the West, they also create in me a feeling of spiritual loneliness not only in public activities but in life itself. I'm a stranger and alien in the West. I cannot be of it. But in my own country also, sometimes, I have an exile's feeling.
The distant mountains seem easy of access and climbing the top beckons, but as one approaches, difficulties emerge, and the higher one goes, the more laborious becomes the journey and the summit recedes into the clouds. Yet the climbing is worth the effort and has its own joy and satisfaction. Perhaps it is the struggle that gives value to life, not so much the ultimate result. Often it is difficult to know which is the right path, it is easier to know sometime what is not right, and to avoid that is something after all. If I may quote, with all humility, the last words of the great Socrates: "I know nothing what death is - it may be a good thing and I'm not afraid of it. But I do know it is a bad thing to desert one's past, and I prefer what may be good, to what I know to be bad."
The years I've spent in prison! Sitting alone, wrapped in my thoughts, how many seasons I've seen go by, following each other into oblivion? How many moons I've watched wax and wane, and the pageant of the stars moving along inexorably and majestically! How many yesterdays of my youth lie buried here, and sometimes I see the ghosts of those dead yesterdays rise up, bringing poignant memories and whispering to me: "Was it worthwhile?" There is no hesitation about the answer...my major decisions in public affairs would remain untouched. Indeed, I couldn't vary them, for they were stronger than myself, and a force beyond my control drove me to them.'
December 30, 2025
“An Autobiography” by Jawaharlal Nehru is a singularly inspiring account of one of the greatest statesmen of his time. In this voluminous work, Nehru traces his journey from his entry into India’s political scene and vividly paints a picture of both his political and personal struggles. And what a struggle it was!
Born into a wealthy family and educated at some of the finest institutions in England, Nehru was deeply moved by the plight of Indians, particularly the agrarian communities of northern India, under British rule. This awakening led him to immerse himself fully in the struggle for India’s independence, eventually becoming one of its foremost leaders.
The autobiography reveals a deeply learned man who was firmly convinced that India’s salvation lay in complete independence from British rule. For Nehru, independence was a foregone conclusion and what truly mattered were the means by which it would be achieved. He strongly believed that non-violence, or “ahimsa,” as propounded by Mahatma Gandhi, was the right path to freedom.
Nehru expressed his opinions candidly and did not hesitate to criticize other leaders in the freedom struggle whose ideologies fell short of complete independence. He held Gandhi in the highest esteem and regarded him as the unchallenged leader of the movement. At the same time, Nehru was openly critical of what he saw as Gandhi’s occasional lack of singular focus on civil disobedience, particularly when it was intertwined with idealistic pursuits such as the removal of untouchability or the use of fasting as a political tool. Despite these differences, Nehru understood Gandhi’s central importance to the movement, trusted his instincts, and valued his counsel.
It is remarkable that Nehru, writing more than a decade before independence, already envisioned a meaningful role for India on the world stage, an extraordinary foresight for a nation still under colonial rule.
Beyond politics, the autobiography presents Nehru as a highly intellectual individual who aspired for India to free itself from religious dogma, embrace modern science and technology (another area where he differed from Gandhi), and reclaim pride in its rich civilizational history, one often distorted by colonial narratives. Marked by nearly a decade spent in various prison sentences, the autobiography also reveals a more personal side of Nehru: an affectionate son, a loving husband, and a devoted father.
This book comes highly recommended for scholars in India and abroad who seek to understand India’s struggle for independence. In an age of misinformation and “post-truth,” “An Autobiography” remains an essential read for anyone wishing to understand how one man, along with many other stalwarts, worked tirelessly to shape the destiny of a nation striving for freedom.
Born into a wealthy family and educated at some of the finest institutions in England, Nehru was deeply moved by the plight of Indians, particularly the agrarian communities of northern India, under British rule. This awakening led him to immerse himself fully in the struggle for India’s independence, eventually becoming one of its foremost leaders.
The autobiography reveals a deeply learned man who was firmly convinced that India’s salvation lay in complete independence from British rule. For Nehru, independence was a foregone conclusion and what truly mattered were the means by which it would be achieved. He strongly believed that non-violence, or “ahimsa,” as propounded by Mahatma Gandhi, was the right path to freedom.
Nehru expressed his opinions candidly and did not hesitate to criticize other leaders in the freedom struggle whose ideologies fell short of complete independence. He held Gandhi in the highest esteem and regarded him as the unchallenged leader of the movement. At the same time, Nehru was openly critical of what he saw as Gandhi’s occasional lack of singular focus on civil disobedience, particularly when it was intertwined with idealistic pursuits such as the removal of untouchability or the use of fasting as a political tool. Despite these differences, Nehru understood Gandhi’s central importance to the movement, trusted his instincts, and valued his counsel.
It is remarkable that Nehru, writing more than a decade before independence, already envisioned a meaningful role for India on the world stage, an extraordinary foresight for a nation still under colonial rule.
Beyond politics, the autobiography presents Nehru as a highly intellectual individual who aspired for India to free itself from religious dogma, embrace modern science and technology (another area where he differed from Gandhi), and reclaim pride in its rich civilizational history, one often distorted by colonial narratives. Marked by nearly a decade spent in various prison sentences, the autobiography also reveals a more personal side of Nehru: an affectionate son, a loving husband, and a devoted father.
This book comes highly recommended for scholars in India and abroad who seek to understand India’s struggle for independence. In an age of misinformation and “post-truth,” “An Autobiography” remains an essential read for anyone wishing to understand how one man, along with many other stalwarts, worked tirelessly to shape the destiny of a nation striving for freedom.
July 21, 2025
Its more like a conversation the author had with himself about various concerns or confusions he was having. Here is a man who seemed to me unconcerned about the results his words would cause!!
Nehru was a pure blood socialist, mostly a pacifist, still, he was not entirely sure about Gandhiji's method of non violence as a tool to attain the cause.
Though, he was always in awe of Gandhiji and the magnetic appeal Gandhiji had to masses, he was, on most of the times critical of Gandhiji's various decisions, the sudden calling off of Non cooperation movement for eg. Also, he was against introducing religion into politics, against all the archaic ideas Gandhiji used to propagate or harbour. He was also a guy who was perpetually curious about the world, a true seeker. He resented Hindu Mahasabha and it's now clear to me why BJ party and its propaganda machine is focussed on him so much.
Nowadays, BJ party led propaganda is like Nehru was a power hungry man who wanted to be the PM of India surpassing Patel that he constantly tried to be in Gandhiji's good books. But anyone who read this book could vouch that, Nehru never cared for Gandhi's opinion on him, he was consistently criticising Gandhiji in one way or another, albeit he had immense respect for the leader Gandhi was.
And, I find it confusing that a person (in 1936s) who was a staunch supporter of socialism and democracy and a sympathiser of communist ideology (though, he found the high handedness of some 'communist/socialist' leaders obnoxious and he found some ideas of Karl Marx are impossible to follow), yet, he used the Art 356(?) to establish presidential rule in Kerala by toppling the democratically elected communist government. I find it hard to believe that Nehru in 1936 and 1959 were the same person. Nehru in 1936 was against zamindari system and yet the Nehru in 1959 apparently was against Land reform movement!!
Anyway, its a must read for anyone who is interested in this country's history and it's politics. You will get an idea of the kind of person Nehru was , and you may get an idea about the 'Why's of the many political decisions he took.
P.S. It's a long book, almost 700 pages, it took me almost two years to read it completely because I read a few chapters and then skipped this and read something else for a while.
Nehru was a pure blood socialist, mostly a pacifist, still, he was not entirely sure about Gandhiji's method of non violence as a tool to attain the cause.
Though, he was always in awe of Gandhiji and the magnetic appeal Gandhiji had to masses, he was, on most of the times critical of Gandhiji's various decisions, the sudden calling off of Non cooperation movement for eg. Also, he was against introducing religion into politics, against all the archaic ideas Gandhiji used to propagate or harbour. He was also a guy who was perpetually curious about the world, a true seeker. He resented Hindu Mahasabha and it's now clear to me why BJ party and its propaganda machine is focussed on him so much.
Nowadays, BJ party led propaganda is like Nehru was a power hungry man who wanted to be the PM of India surpassing Patel that he constantly tried to be in Gandhiji's good books. But anyone who read this book could vouch that, Nehru never cared for Gandhi's opinion on him, he was consistently criticising Gandhiji in one way or another, albeit he had immense respect for the leader Gandhi was.
And, I find it confusing that a person (in 1936s) who was a staunch supporter of socialism and democracy and a sympathiser of communist ideology (though, he found the high handedness of some 'communist/socialist' leaders obnoxious and he found some ideas of Karl Marx are impossible to follow), yet, he used the Art 356(?) to establish presidential rule in Kerala by toppling the democratically elected communist government. I find it hard to believe that Nehru in 1936 and 1959 were the same person. Nehru in 1936 was against zamindari system and yet the Nehru in 1959 apparently was against Land reform movement!!
Anyway, its a must read for anyone who is interested in this country's history and it's politics. You will get an idea of the kind of person Nehru was , and you may get an idea about the 'Why's of the many political decisions he took.
P.S. It's a long book, almost 700 pages, it took me almost two years to read it completely because I read a few chapters and then skipped this and read something else for a while.
March 15, 2024
The first 400 pages were just like I felt in India: a mess. It looked like all the Congress activity was chaotic and pointless and all those politicians seemed a bit ridiculous - or maybe absurd? But it was fluently written and in a way it all came together, so I went 'til the end. And amazingly enough I enjoyed the last part: the analysis of a number of social, political and national aspects was a lot deeper than the first part had shown him capable of. Indeed his thoughts were bigger than his deeds. Amazingly enough, I appreciated and approved of his criticsm towards Gandhi - a few years back I would have definitely been on the other side, the 'metaphysical' one. In fact a few years back this book would have bore me to death. I guess I'm getting old by now...
As of the ideas themselves - most of them made sense: disaproval of the nazy/fascist regimes, the agrarian problematics and approach. However, where he was definitely wrong (but only the history which had not happened by then tought us that) was in his admiration of the Soviet Union and his communist ideas. To his defence, his admiration for USSR was not total, so he must have sensed that something was not turning round there. Another idea to which I could not subscribe was the principle that public administration personnel should receive very small salaries if any salary at all, the argument being that only people determined to work for the public good expecting nothing in return should do that kind of jobs. There are a few obvious problems with that: only a certain class of people would afford to take to such jobs, this would open wide the doors of corruption, etc. But that logical aspect is not what bothered me most. What bothered me most was the naivity of believing something like that could work. I guess it's correlated to the belief that the communism could work. It cannot, for the human nature is such, that it just cannot....
As of the ideas themselves - most of them made sense: disaproval of the nazy/fascist regimes, the agrarian problematics and approach. However, where he was definitely wrong (but only the history which had not happened by then tought us that) was in his admiration of the Soviet Union and his communist ideas. To his defence, his admiration for USSR was not total, so he must have sensed that something was not turning round there. Another idea to which I could not subscribe was the principle that public administration personnel should receive very small salaries if any salary at all, the argument being that only people determined to work for the public good expecting nothing in return should do that kind of jobs. There are a few obvious problems with that: only a certain class of people would afford to take to such jobs, this would open wide the doors of corruption, etc. But that logical aspect is not what bothered me most. What bothered me most was the naivity of believing something like that could work. I guess it's correlated to the belief that the communism could work. It cannot, for the human nature is such, that it just cannot....
Read
September 30, 2023They say, writing the autobiography is like masturbation, eulogizing oneself, self-gratifying. However, I am aware that there are exceptions, though I haven’t read many autobiographies. But that happens when the autobiography ceases to be one’s own exclusive story and becomes the story of many others in one way or the other. In Nithyachaithanya Yathi‘s autobiography Yathicharitham, he says:
“Historic events have never revolved around me. My words don’t carry the purity or the charm of any essential quality capable of drawing the contemporary world to them. And though I laboured to tread the path of devotion, my soul doesn’t radiate the uncorrupted beauty like that of Tulsidas, Kabirdas, or Saint Francis. So if you ask why such a nonentity like me has penned his autobiography, I only have this one answer… It’s more fitting to let one’s own self serve as an example of how human life could repeatedly stumble into darkness unawares than point one’s finger to someone else in a laughter of ridicule or a sympathy that evokes discomfort.”
How beautiful!
And now I’m reading another autobiography, An Autobiography by Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru writes about it:
“Essentially an autobiography is a personal document and therefore it reflects personal views and reactions. But the person who wrote it became merged, to a large extent, in the larger movement and therefore represents, in a large measure, the feelings of many others.”
“Historic events have never revolved around me. My words don’t carry the purity or the charm of any essential quality capable of drawing the contemporary world to them. And though I laboured to tread the path of devotion, my soul doesn’t radiate the uncorrupted beauty like that of Tulsidas, Kabirdas, or Saint Francis. So if you ask why such a nonentity like me has penned his autobiography, I only have this one answer… It’s more fitting to let one’s own self serve as an example of how human life could repeatedly stumble into darkness unawares than point one’s finger to someone else in a laughter of ridicule or a sympathy that evokes discomfort.”
How beautiful!
And now I’m reading another autobiography, An Autobiography by Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru writes about it:
“Essentially an autobiography is a personal document and therefore it reflects personal views and reactions. But the person who wrote it became merged, to a large extent, in the larger movement and therefore represents, in a large measure, the feelings of many others.”
January 2, 2025
I loved reading the writings of Pandit Nehru considering so much of recent abuses of this great man. I am just amused by the intelligence of him and how our present generation educated illiterates makes fun out of him without knowing a word about him blindly trusting whatsapp forward messages. The second half of the book mostly covers his prison period. He spends most of the period in 1930's in prison. Frequently arrested and spending prison period from few months to more than a year. He is from a affluent family and there is no need for him to spend his time in prison when he can live a luxury life. That talks about his sacrifice he made for the nation. He could not spend enough time during the last months of his father, wife and mother and all of them passed away when he spent most of that time in the prison. He is also very frank in putting his views even about Gandhi. He worships Gandhi but still could not agree with him on so many opinions. He is very outspoken. I don't think the present day politicians don't stand a chance in a debate with him. He is an intellect, fine statesman of our country. Considering the chaos and various challenges this country faced in the 1930's, he made a fine job in successfully running the country for close to 2 decades without allowing it to breakup. He made some mistakes but that was done without any malafide intention. He was more popular than Saradar Vallapai Patel and was selected as President of Indian National Congress multiple times in 1930's and is not handpicked byy Gandhi as portrayed by BJP now. Must read book for Pandit Nehru's admirers.
December 26, 2019
3 stars for the book, 5 stars for the man
Though titled 'autobiography', it would be more apt to call it 'thoughts on contemporary events'. Since these thought were written during one of Pandit Nehru's long and many gaol terms, they carry a distinct meloncholy introspective tone. The book does not necessarily encourage as the gaol barriers make it difficult for a reader to intimately connect with the writer. And yet, somewhat amazingly, the reader can not help but appreciate Pandit Nehru for his honesty, frankness and intellect. The lasting impression is of a lonely man surrounded by teeming millions, destined to carry the burden of their billion hopes.
Though titled 'autobiography', it would be more apt to call it 'thoughts on contemporary events'. Since these thought were written during one of Pandit Nehru's long and many gaol terms, they carry a distinct meloncholy introspective tone. The book does not necessarily encourage as the gaol barriers make it difficult for a reader to intimately connect with the writer. And yet, somewhat amazingly, the reader can not help but appreciate Pandit Nehru for his honesty, frankness and intellect. The lasting impression is of a lonely man surrounded by teeming millions, destined to carry the burden of their billion hopes.
April 11, 2021
An autobiography by Jawaharlal Nehru is not only the tale of the first prime minister of independent India, but also the thoughts of a man who was a diehard democrat, Patriot, cosmopolitan and one of the leading personalities of the twentieth century.
And before we start exploring about the protagonist of this article one thing which I wanna clear for the readers or non readers alike that this book is quite heavy to read.
I would suggest for a layman to go for some good biographies written on Nehru and afterwards you can read his autobiography.
For the detailed article you can visit my website- https://dontbignorant.in/jawaharlal-n...
And before we start exploring about the protagonist of this article one thing which I wanna clear for the readers or non readers alike that this book is quite heavy to read.
I would suggest for a layman to go for some good biographies written on Nehru and afterwards you can read his autobiography.
For the detailed article you can visit my website- https://dontbignorant.in/jawaharlal-n...
November 28, 2019
Not that insightful, as I had expected!! !!
First and foremost the book is too bulky (~700) pages.
Flow of the book is not that great. It's sometimes check your patience and even if you skip some paragraph you won't loose anything.
It goes into too much details in the events of 1930's. Would have expected broad narration of events and more personal insight/ thought from the Nehru( a Statesman).
Though bulky and a bit boaring this gives a good tilt of mind of the first Prime Minister of India who have contributed immensely in nation building.
Must read but having " But" In mind.
First and foremost the book is too bulky (~700) pages.
Flow of the book is not that great. It's sometimes check your patience and even if you skip some paragraph you won't loose anything.
It goes into too much details in the events of 1930's. Would have expected broad narration of events and more personal insight/ thought from the Nehru( a Statesman).
Though bulky and a bit boaring this gives a good tilt of mind of the first Prime Minister of India who have contributed immensely in nation building.
Must read but having " But" In mind.
November 11, 2025
From the perspective of a lady who never believed in the Congress party, An Autobiography by Jawaharlal Nehru was an eye-opening and thought-provoking read. Though I began it with skepticism, I was struck by Nehru’s honesty, intellect, and deep love for India. His reflections on freedom, poverty, and politics show both idealism and flaws. While I may not agree with all his political views, I admire his sincerity and dedication to the nation’s progress. Overall, it helped me see Nehru as a passionate human being rather than just a political figure, earning my respect beyond party lines.
May 30, 2021
I really had high expectations from this, but like almost all of autobios/bios I’ve read this too was disappointing.
After reading more than 650 pages, I know less about Nehru than I knew before reading this.
Somehow this read more like a collection of essays on contemporary India and Indian freedom movement rather than an autobiographical account. Not unexpected though, since he was intricately interlinked with both. But the essential personal touch of autobiographies was missing.
After reading more than 650 pages, I know less about Nehru than I knew before reading this.
Somehow this read more like a collection of essays on contemporary India and Indian freedom movement rather than an autobiographical account. Not unexpected though, since he was intricately interlinked with both. But the essential personal touch of autobiographies was missing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews