What do you think?
Rate this book
Nehru: The Debates that Defined India
From being elected as Congress president in 1929 till his death in 1964, Jawaharlal Nehru remained a towering figure in Indian politics, a man who left an indelible stamp on the history of South Asia. As a leading light of the nationalist struggle and as India's first and longest-serving prime minister, his ideas shaped the political contours of the country and left an imprint so deep that his legacy continues to be debated furiously today.
In life, as in afterlife, Nehru was many things to many people. Going beyond the imposed labels of contemporary discourse, this book illuminates four encounters that Nehru had with contemporaries from across the political spectrum - Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Sardar Patel and Syama Prasad Mookerjee - that are critical to understanding his ideas, and his long afterlife and impress on the present.
Nehru may no longer be alive to answer his critics today, but there was a time when he pitted himself vigorously against his opponents in the marketplace of ideas, debating the most profound questions in South Asian history and decisively influencing political events. It is this intellectually combative Nehru whom we meet in this book - voicing ideological disagreements, forging political alliances, moulding political opinion, offering visions of the future and staking out the political field - a key figure in the debates that defined India
In life, as in afterlife, Nehru was many things to many people. Going beyond the imposed labels of contemporary discourse, this book illuminates four encounters that Nehru had with contemporaries from across the political spectrum - Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Sardar Patel and Syama Prasad Mookerjee - that are critical to understanding his ideas, and his long afterlife and impress on the present.
Nehru may no longer be alive to answer his critics today, but there was a time when he pitted himself vigorously against his opponents in the marketplace of ideas, debating the most profound questions in South Asian history and decisively influencing political events. It is this intellectually combative Nehru whom we meet in this book - voicing ideological disagreements, forging political alliances, moulding political opinion, offering visions of the future and staking out the political field - a key figure in the debates that defined India
289 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 11, 2021
39 people are currently reading
406 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
December 12, 2021
With the early demise of Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel after independence, Nehru totally dominated India’s politics and his idea of India became THE idea of India.
This book contains his debates with Iqbal, Jinnah, Sardar Patel and SP Mukherjee.
Iqbal (secularism) - Nehru was an ardent secularist and I could almost imagine myself making the same arguments with the same passion. I was shocked to read Iqbal’s views - against pluralism, for exclusion of Ahmaddiyas, in praise of Wahhabism !
Jinnah (Muslim separatism) - Have read a lot on partition and Jinnah. Nothing new here. Jinnah was his usual obscurantist, stubborn self.
Patel (foreign policy) - Surprisingly, Nehru was criticised for his foreign policy since 1947 itself. For a “liberal” he was so touchy about criticism and so intolerant of any opposing views. He even inserted a clause in the First Amendment to shield his foreign policy from criticism :)
SP Mukherjee - I skipped this section as I am reading “Sixteen Stormy Days” by one of the co-authors - Tripurdaman Singh on the draconian First Amendment to the Indian constitution. Review Link -> https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
This book contains his debates with Iqbal, Jinnah, Sardar Patel and SP Mukherjee.
Iqbal (secularism) - Nehru was an ardent secularist and I could almost imagine myself making the same arguments with the same passion. I was shocked to read Iqbal’s views - against pluralism, for exclusion of Ahmaddiyas, in praise of Wahhabism !
Jinnah (Muslim separatism) - Have read a lot on partition and Jinnah. Nothing new here. Jinnah was his usual obscurantist, stubborn self.
Patel (foreign policy) - Surprisingly, Nehru was criticised for his foreign policy since 1947 itself. For a “liberal” he was so touchy about criticism and so intolerant of any opposing views. He even inserted a clause in the First Amendment to shield his foreign policy from criticism :)
SP Mukherjee - I skipped this section as I am reading “Sixteen Stormy Days” by one of the co-authors - Tripurdaman Singh on the draconian First Amendment to the Indian constitution. Review Link -> https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
November 18, 2021
Modern-day historians have penned multiple assessments on India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, waxing eloquent praise often and scathing criticisms frequently. In specific matters concerning public, economic, and foreign policy, the story of Nehru’s India has been endorsed and opposed by modern-day politicians belonging to two extreme spectrums. Yet, such assessments often lacked an essential analysis of the tenets which Nehru stood for throughout his life. These tenets were not only the product of his Western education, as his critics would often label him as an ‘Anglophile’ to dismiss his modernism, but were also due to his constant public engagement and private discussions on vital issues with his compatriots.
Delving into the correspondence, articles written by Nehru, letters exchanged between Nehru and Sardar Patel, and the Constitutional debates during the first amendment, Tripurdaman Singh’s and Adeel Hussain’s new book have critically explored Nehru’s political philosophy and ideas which laid the foundations of modern India. Previously, Tripurdaman Singh’s book ‘Sixteen Stormy Days’ carried a captivating historical narration on the story behind Nehru’s turnabout and the series of events leading to the first amendment to the Constitution. Reproducing the parliamentary debate between Syama Prasad Mukherjee and Jawaharlal Nehru, this book reinforces the well-known side of Nehru, who dogmatically believed in social reforms, land reforms, and the abolition of zamindari, which were stymied by the Judicial intervention.
His ideological spar with Mohammed Ali Jinnah in a series of letters as reproduced in this book revives Nehru’s longstanding and lifetime commitment to secularism and his vehement opposition to any form of communalism. Written in an authoritative yet benevolent style, Nehru’s unflinching take on the question of the communal electorate and his resolute denial in accepting Muslim League as the sole representative of the Indian Muslims, Nehru-Jinnah debate with all its conviction and civility is the one which principally defined Nehru’s India.
To understand Nehru’s ideas on religious reforms, his debate with the famous Urdu poet Mohammed Iqbal explains his inherent aversion towards religious orthodoxy. In Iqbal's standpoint of declaring the sect of Ahmadis as non-Muslims, Nehru’s contention that economic independence would supersede religious nationalism elucidates his adherent belief that materialism could be a prime liberator from the clutches of social evils. As a self-identified atheist, his dissension with Iqbal portrays his less known pragmatic and rationalist side.
On a seriously contentious topic; the disagreements between Nehru and Patel, the authors had reproduced two critical exchanges from Sardar Patel to Nehru dealing with the foreign policy towards China, the series of letters makes a compelling read. The authors had also provided a full-length commentary on the events leading up to the recognition of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese annexation of Tibet, and the issue of China’s permanent seat in the UNSC. Much has been discussed and debated on the Sino-Indian relationship since the war of 1962, yet the warnings from Patel before his death in two letters addressed to Nehru, as reproduced in this book remains deeply relevant, even today.
To summarize, it is often said that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. The truth of this adage is seldom realized. Works like this, primarily relying on original records of letters and archived writings resurrect the intellectual vibrancy that prevailed between political rivals who carried debates and discussions that moulded free India’s Constitution and political history.
Delving into the correspondence, articles written by Nehru, letters exchanged between Nehru and Sardar Patel, and the Constitutional debates during the first amendment, Tripurdaman Singh’s and Adeel Hussain’s new book have critically explored Nehru’s political philosophy and ideas which laid the foundations of modern India. Previously, Tripurdaman Singh’s book ‘Sixteen Stormy Days’ carried a captivating historical narration on the story behind Nehru’s turnabout and the series of events leading to the first amendment to the Constitution. Reproducing the parliamentary debate between Syama Prasad Mukherjee and Jawaharlal Nehru, this book reinforces the well-known side of Nehru, who dogmatically believed in social reforms, land reforms, and the abolition of zamindari, which were stymied by the Judicial intervention.
His ideological spar with Mohammed Ali Jinnah in a series of letters as reproduced in this book revives Nehru’s longstanding and lifetime commitment to secularism and his vehement opposition to any form of communalism. Written in an authoritative yet benevolent style, Nehru’s unflinching take on the question of the communal electorate and his resolute denial in accepting Muslim League as the sole representative of the Indian Muslims, Nehru-Jinnah debate with all its conviction and civility is the one which principally defined Nehru’s India.
To understand Nehru’s ideas on religious reforms, his debate with the famous Urdu poet Mohammed Iqbal explains his inherent aversion towards religious orthodoxy. In Iqbal's standpoint of declaring the sect of Ahmadis as non-Muslims, Nehru’s contention that economic independence would supersede religious nationalism elucidates his adherent belief that materialism could be a prime liberator from the clutches of social evils. As a self-identified atheist, his dissension with Iqbal portrays his less known pragmatic and rationalist side.
On a seriously contentious topic; the disagreements between Nehru and Patel, the authors had reproduced two critical exchanges from Sardar Patel to Nehru dealing with the foreign policy towards China, the series of letters makes a compelling read. The authors had also provided a full-length commentary on the events leading up to the recognition of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese annexation of Tibet, and the issue of China’s permanent seat in the UNSC. Much has been discussed and debated on the Sino-Indian relationship since the war of 1962, yet the warnings from Patel before his death in two letters addressed to Nehru, as reproduced in this book remains deeply relevant, even today.
To summarize, it is often said that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. The truth of this adage is seldom realized. Works like this, primarily relying on original records of letters and archived writings resurrect the intellectual vibrancy that prevailed between political rivals who carried debates and discussions that moulded free India’s Constitution and political history.
January 4, 2022
Would have given four stars but the authors didn't provide any footnotes or some adequate background for any of the chapters. The first two chapters were okay, but the 3rd and 4th chapters were interesting to read. Overall it was a good book but only read it if you have reasonable knowledge of Indian political history.
July 12, 2022
Nehru and his ideas have been pivotal in the direction that India took after independence. A prolific writer, idealist thinker and philosopher that he was, he had penned opinion on wide variety of subjects. In this book, the authors produce four debates that Nehru had, which demonstrate his thinking, and hint their influence on Indian policies.
First debate is with Mohammad Iqbal on conservatism and reforms in religion; Second, with Jinnah on rights of minorities; Third, with Sardar Patel on foreign relations (especially China policy) and fourth, with Shyama Prasad Mookerjee on the eve of first amendment to the Indian Constitution which then was only 15 months old and first general elections were yet to be held.
While some debates show him in positive light, some are very critical of Nehru. Independent of this, book provides great insights into the minds of these great leaders and facts which presented them. It is an excellent read for any student of Indian history
First debate is with Mohammad Iqbal on conservatism and reforms in religion; Second, with Jinnah on rights of minorities; Third, with Sardar Patel on foreign relations (especially China policy) and fourth, with Shyama Prasad Mookerjee on the eve of first amendment to the Indian Constitution which then was only 15 months old and first general elections were yet to be held.
While some debates show him in positive light, some are very critical of Nehru. Independent of this, book provides great insights into the minds of these great leaders and facts which presented them. It is an excellent read for any student of Indian history
April 5, 2022
In spite of all the efforts to paint Nehru in poor light, he remains a towering figure in India. Today's India has been shaped by Nehru's ideas and Nehru's ideals - including all his imperfections. This book selects and presents four of his debates with equally eloquent personalities. The first 3 debates were in written form and presented as unaltered letter exchanges and the fourth one is presented verbatim as it happened within the esteemed halls of the Parliament.
Interestingly, in all these exchanges, Nehru's shortcomings spring up to the surface, and his ever-so-slight inclination towards authoritarianism and/or self-idolatry can be felt.
In his exchanges with Iqbal, Nehru comes out as too perfectionist to be practical - his idea of India, while grand, is devoid of the ground reality.
In his demands to Jinnah, Nehru is speaking from the position of power and both parties look unwilling to any compromise for the betterment of the countrymen.
Nehru's failure in judging China is evident in his exchanges with Sardar; but while a casual reader will read this 'only' as Nehru's blunder, a more nuanced and aware reader will 'also' find the details on why Nehru made those mistakes (and eventually suffered, without recovery - leading to his death). This chapter also points at the pitfalls of putting any leader on a pedestal. It proves why the authority should be constantly questioned and not let it implement decisions only individually.
However, the best and the most relevant was Nehru's speech in the final chapter and even more so the rejoinder from Dr. S.P. Mookerjee. Mookerjee's retort is a must-read for all the valid counter-arguments, relevance, and most of all for the irony of the present.
"If authoritarianism is indeed foundational to the postcolonial Indian state, then such a state of affairs owes much to the First Amendment."
"The story of the amendment, India’s first great clash of ideas, reveals the Nehruvian vision of India to have eerie convergences with the modern-day privileging of statism, Nehru’s arguments mirroring those put forward by his detractors today – as much as it shows Mookerjee’s vision of India to be the antithesis to that of his ideological successors."
"Mookerjee's prophetic warning: ‘Maybe you will continue for eternity, in the next generation, for generations unborn; that is quite possible. But supposing some other party comes into authority? What is the precedent you are laying down?’"
Other favorite quotes:
"a lawyer represents precedent and tradition and not change" - Nehru
Dr S.P. Mookerjee: The independence of the country will remain intact if you do not try to pass coercive measures. As the honourable Prime Minister said, no country can ever be governed by force or by coercion. If the country has run amuck, if there are people who could not be kept under control without exercising very strict executive rights and powers, then you must enquire why it is that the country has come to that state of affairs. Why should these people who were swearing by you only a year ago, condemn you today and why should it be necessary to find bullets and bayonets for keeping your freedom intact?
Pandit Malaviya (Uttar Pradesh): And give 40 per cent or 50 per cent representation to the Muslims everywhere all over this country?
Dr S.P. Mookerjee: Why should I not have the right to agitate for it?
Mookerjee: I said, supposing in future something like this happens and there is a subservient Parliament then what happens? .. I like these interruptions, because I can feel from these interruptions that there is a real searching of the heart amongst Members of this House. What we are doing today is not the right thing. It is not necessary, it is retrograde...
And more...
"So much did the Indian position harden vis-à-vis the United States that when the Truman administration suggested in August 1950 that Nationalist China (Formosa) be unseated from the Security Council and India put in its place rather than the People’s Republic, Nehru rejected the suggestion with great vehemence and declared: ‘[W]e are not going in at the cost of China … we are not going to countenance it … We shall go on pressing for China’s admission to the UN and the Security Council.’"
and finally:
Patel:"... communism is no shield against imperialism."
Interestingly, in all these exchanges, Nehru's shortcomings spring up to the surface, and his ever-so-slight inclination towards authoritarianism and/or self-idolatry can be felt.
In his exchanges with Iqbal, Nehru comes out as too perfectionist to be practical - his idea of India, while grand, is devoid of the ground reality.
In his demands to Jinnah, Nehru is speaking from the position of power and both parties look unwilling to any compromise for the betterment of the countrymen.
Nehru's failure in judging China is evident in his exchanges with Sardar; but while a casual reader will read this 'only' as Nehru's blunder, a more nuanced and aware reader will 'also' find the details on why Nehru made those mistakes (and eventually suffered, without recovery - leading to his death). This chapter also points at the pitfalls of putting any leader on a pedestal. It proves why the authority should be constantly questioned and not let it implement decisions only individually.
However, the best and the most relevant was Nehru's speech in the final chapter and even more so the rejoinder from Dr. S.P. Mookerjee. Mookerjee's retort is a must-read for all the valid counter-arguments, relevance, and most of all for the irony of the present.
"If authoritarianism is indeed foundational to the postcolonial Indian state, then such a state of affairs owes much to the First Amendment."
"The story of the amendment, India’s first great clash of ideas, reveals the Nehruvian vision of India to have eerie convergences with the modern-day privileging of statism, Nehru’s arguments mirroring those put forward by his detractors today – as much as it shows Mookerjee’s vision of India to be the antithesis to that of his ideological successors."
"Mookerjee's prophetic warning: ‘Maybe you will continue for eternity, in the next generation, for generations unborn; that is quite possible. But supposing some other party comes into authority? What is the precedent you are laying down?’"
Other favorite quotes:
"a lawyer represents precedent and tradition and not change" - Nehru
Dr S.P. Mookerjee: The independence of the country will remain intact if you do not try to pass coercive measures. As the honourable Prime Minister said, no country can ever be governed by force or by coercion. If the country has run amuck, if there are people who could not be kept under control without exercising very strict executive rights and powers, then you must enquire why it is that the country has come to that state of affairs. Why should these people who were swearing by you only a year ago, condemn you today and why should it be necessary to find bullets and bayonets for keeping your freedom intact?
Pandit Malaviya (Uttar Pradesh): And give 40 per cent or 50 per cent representation to the Muslims everywhere all over this country?
Dr S.P. Mookerjee: Why should I not have the right to agitate for it?
Mookerjee: I said, supposing in future something like this happens and there is a subservient Parliament then what happens? .. I like these interruptions, because I can feel from these interruptions that there is a real searching of the heart amongst Members of this House. What we are doing today is not the right thing. It is not necessary, it is retrograde...
And more...
"So much did the Indian position harden vis-à-vis the United States that when the Truman administration suggested in August 1950 that Nationalist China (Formosa) be unseated from the Security Council and India put in its place rather than the People’s Republic, Nehru rejected the suggestion with great vehemence and declared: ‘[W]e are not going in at the cost of China … we are not going to countenance it … We shall go on pressing for China’s admission to the UN and the Security Council.’"
and finally:
Patel:"... communism is no shield against imperialism."
May 16, 2022
An excellent expose of the cracks in Nehru's image as the perfect leader of India. I was introduced to this book thru Carvaka Podcast's episode on the topic, and I share the host's excitement about the book. It is possible the book maybe biased, but there is also no doubt that the debates mentioned are undermined in the popular historical narrative. The authors mentioned that the book was a chronological detail of the events, but it certainly also projects a remarkable picture of an idealistic Nehru slowly growing insensitive to differences of opinion, which (as per Tripurdaman's narrative) culminates in Nehru clamping down on arbitrary exercise of power thru sedition laws and whatnot. It is said tyranny is the deliberate absence of nuance - if so, then Nehru was no doubt a tyrant.
June 3, 2023
#qotd What is your favorite history book and what makes it stand out to you?
📕Book Review - Nehru: The Debates That
Defend India
📕Format: Kindle
📕Genre: Non-Fiction, History,
Politics
📕Publication: Harpercollinsin
📕INTRODUCTION
Nehru: The Debates that Defined India" is an analytical work that attempts to encapsulate the life and political ideology of Jawaharlal Nehru, one of India's most renowned leaders. The book is co-authored by Adeel Hussain and Tripurdaman Singh, both of whom offer their insights to deliver a lucid exposition of Nehru's significance in India's history. The authors depict Nehru’s political leadership as India's first Prime Minister and analyze the different ideologies that he espoused, with varying degrees of success.
📕ABOUT THE BOOK
This book is a collection of speeches, letters, and articles written by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. It covers topics such as secularism, democracy, socialism, and foreign policy.
The book also provides a deep insight into Nehru's personality, his vision for India, and his struggles. It includes his views on various issues such as caste, religion, and women's rights .
📕STRENGTH
The book uses primary sources, including Nehru's speeches, letters, and writings, as well as contemporary newspaper articles and government documents and offers a fresh perspective on Nehru's legacy.
📕DRAWBACK
Some readers may find the book's writing style to be dense and academic, which could make it challenging to read.
📕OVERALL IMPRESSION
It is a fascinating read that sheds light on an important period of Indian history.
As someone who is passionate about politics and history, I found this book to be insightful and informative. 🤓👍
Rating: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (4/5)
.
January 23, 2022
Tripurdaman Singh & Adeel Hussain’s - The Debates that defined India || Cover by Gavin Morris
1. I fear the Pandit's articles reveal practically no acquaintance with Islam' - Iqbal v Nehru - this is quite fascinating as I’ve not read that much on Iqbal only that he was a Muslim poet philosopher. This lights his claim & belief in the exclusivity of Islam and that it cannot accept any sects or ideas, that nullify their basic tenets via-a-vis Ahemdiyas & Nehru’s insistence on muslim brotherhood
2. Safeguarding the rights and interests of the Mussalmans' - Jinnah v Nehru - this feels more straight forward post Dhulipala’s book and the astuteness & wily political acumen of Jinnah who could make his case without being clear and positively vague in his true intentions while at the same time demanding over the top vetoes and concessions, while it seems like Nehru was fighting for their freedom and Jinnah only his.
3. Communism is no shield against imperialism' - Patel v Nehru - a no contest because of the untimely death of Iron Man, and his wise words that didn’t take much time to come true against the idealist and global icon Nehru. Fighting for Communist China, which was planning to invade India against the west and his own countrymen, and the wound still festers.
4. You are treating this Constitution like a scrap of paper' - SP Mukherjee V Nehru - Story of the 1/105 amendment and setting up a dangerous precedent that made the sacred draft into a pliable horse only because Nehru was unable to take criticism and work through the opposition to them. SP Mukherjee erudite and subtlety parodic speech levels him head and shoulders above his peers.
1. I fear the Pandit's articles reveal practically no acquaintance with Islam' - Iqbal v Nehru - this is quite fascinating as I’ve not read that much on Iqbal only that he was a Muslim poet philosopher. This lights his claim & belief in the exclusivity of Islam and that it cannot accept any sects or ideas, that nullify their basic tenets via-a-vis Ahemdiyas & Nehru’s insistence on muslim brotherhood
2. Safeguarding the rights and interests of the Mussalmans' - Jinnah v Nehru - this feels more straight forward post Dhulipala’s book and the astuteness & wily political acumen of Jinnah who could make his case without being clear and positively vague in his true intentions while at the same time demanding over the top vetoes and concessions, while it seems like Nehru was fighting for their freedom and Jinnah only his.
3. Communism is no shield against imperialism' - Patel v Nehru - a no contest because of the untimely death of Iron Man, and his wise words that didn’t take much time to come true against the idealist and global icon Nehru. Fighting for Communist China, which was planning to invade India against the west and his own countrymen, and the wound still festers.
4. You are treating this Constitution like a scrap of paper' - SP Mukherjee V Nehru - Story of the 1/105 amendment and setting up a dangerous precedent that made the sacred draft into a pliable horse only because Nehru was unable to take criticism and work through the opposition to them. SP Mukherjee erudite and subtlety parodic speech levels him head and shoulders above his peers.
February 17, 2022
Amongst our founding fathers, Nehru's stature was virtually unmatched for all practical purposes. He was a giant in politics unlike anything India had seen. He was a leader loved by his people and his sway over Indian politics was so wide ranging that even his stoutest of opponents operated in a very Nehruvian way. Come 2021 and we still see the Indian government operate in a Nehruvian style despite showering vitriolic criticisms over him.
This book is a great set of foundational debates which Nehru had with stalwarts like Iqbal, Jinnah, Patel and S.P Mookherjee. These debates, when viewed with the power of retrospect, are indicative of the stand the government took eventually on matters of religion, foreign policy and questions of liberty. We get a glimpse of Nehru's mind, his visionary secular outlook foiled by his sometimes brash and authoritative behavior. He, like people of his age, was a product of his circumstances and full of contradictions. This book lets the debates, as articulated through letters and speeches, speak for themselves allowing the reader to make up his mind. Highly recommend
This book is a great set of foundational debates which Nehru had with stalwarts like Iqbal, Jinnah, Patel and S.P Mookherjee. These debates, when viewed with the power of retrospect, are indicative of the stand the government took eventually on matters of religion, foreign policy and questions of liberty. We get a glimpse of Nehru's mind, his visionary secular outlook foiled by his sometimes brash and authoritative behavior. He, like people of his age, was a product of his circumstances and full of contradictions. This book lets the debates, as articulated through letters and speeches, speak for themselves allowing the reader to make up his mind. Highly recommend
February 18, 2023
Absolutely loved the book. The good thing about the authors is that they do not force feed their point of view on the audience and just present the facts in terms of the correspondences and debates that happened. The first two debates between Nehru & Iqbal and Nehru & Jinnah are kind of okay and do not break new ground as much of it is already known to most of us. However the debates between Nehru & Patel and between Nehru & Mukherjee are absolutely gems. These were not known to even well read people. It showed how prescient both Patel and Mukherjee were and later events proved that whatever fears they had expressed, proved to be true.
September 6, 2023
Insightful book on the whimsical leader
The book covers key interactions between some of the most prominent figures in the 1950s, and sheds light on the decisions that were shaped India for decades.
The book covers key interactions between some of the most prominent figures in the 1950s, and sheds light on the decisions that were shaped India for decades.
Read
November 10, 2023Spent NYE productively to complete reading "#Nehru: The Debates That Defined India" by @Tripurdaman & @AdeelH693!
A brilliant effort to bring forward the personality who showed the right direction to "Independent #India".
For every Indian, the first PM will always remain a hero.
A brilliant effort to bring forward the personality who showed the right direction to "Independent #India".
For every Indian, the first PM will always remain a hero.
April 18, 2024
Its not about right or wrong. Its about how we arrive at what is right or wrong, i.e through debates. These letters between Nehru and Iqbal,Jinnah,Patel and Syama prasad ji reveal how well read these people were and how well they debated with each other in a civil manner.
December 3, 2021
Really enjoyed the book - especially the correspondences between Nehru and the prominent Muslims of British India that led to the creation of Pakistan - Jinnah and Iqbal.
March 19, 2022
Must read to understand that Nehru was mostly not how we know him. The conversations with Sardar Patel and S.P. Mukherjee towards the end of the book are particularly enlightening.
September 18, 2022
Quite interesting
November 16, 2022
Read my review: mazmhussain.substack.com/p/nehru-the-...
May 31, 2023
boring
January 27, 2025
The book is pleasant, however, I believe it could benefit from more cohesive arrangement.
September 21, 2025
great book - a great way of learning about crucial characters in Indian history. In particular learnt a lot from the sections on China and the first amendment
January 24, 2026
a phenomenal feat achieved by the authors in bringing together a picture which has been either suppressed for too long or exaggerated too much.
August 16, 2023
4 critical discussions about the Indian state. Covering o.a.
Religion, nationalism, idealism, federalism, democracy, majority and minority participation, colonial history, independence, secularism, the constitution.
Religion, nationalism, idealism, federalism, democracy, majority and minority participation, colonial history, independence, secularism, the constitution.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews