What do you think?
Rate this book
Nehru: A Contemporary's Estimate
Elegant, perceptive, and startlingly prophetic, A Contemporary’s Estimate is one of the finest accounts of Nehru ever written. Walter Crocker, the Australian high commissioner to India, admired Nehru the man—his grace, style, intelligence and energy—and was deeply critical of many of his political decisions—the invasion of Goa, India’s Kashmir policy, the Five Year Plans. This book, written shortly after Nehru’s death, is full of invaluable first hand observations about the man and his politics. Many of Crocker’s points, too—especially the implications of the Five Year Plans and of the introduction of democracy to India—are particularly relevant today. Out of print for many years, this classic biography has been reissued with an authoritative foreword by Ramachandra Guha.
232 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
22 people are currently reading
190 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 - 29 of 29 reviews
November 24, 2018
Crocker's Nehru is a judicious and measured account of the first prime minister of independent India. In its judiciousness, however, it does not forget to treat Nehru with compassion. In our day and age, when Nehru's name invites only disparagement and criticism, this sympathy is perhaps a desirable reminder to look at history with not only a critical eye, but also with sympathy and understanding.
Non-alignment is perhaps treated unfairly by Crocker, who at times reads it as myopic. However, while not giving it much credit initially, Crocker mentions the lack of real alternatives to non-alignment available to a person in Nehru's place, and counts it as one of his contributions to world peace.
Crocker also criticizes Nehru for being "too hasty" in his pursuit of decolonisation and independence. He perceives Nehru's hastiness as having shown unfortunate results in many decolonised states, which have seen dictatorships emerge - and India itself is seen in danger of failing to sustain parliamentary democracy. Crocker himself is perhaps not entirely free of traces of a colonial mindset when he offers this criticism, and which can be seen emerging occasionally throughout the book, as when he speaks of the "Indian mind" - usually negatively. Crocker's rather imperial tone is also hard to miss when he speaks of the "mob".
Nehru's most important contribution within India, according to Crocker, is his fostering of progressive attitudes, notably the improvement of the condition of women and the oppressed castes. His emphasis on the cultivation of scientific temper and the attempt to emancipate large portions of the Indian public from superstition is also lauded. However, this is tempered by noting Nehru's distance from 'Indian sensibilities' (at least on some counts, especially religion), which meant that he was not quite in touch with the population he had the responsibility of governing. This, Crocker tells us, was largely due to his being born an Indian, but bred an Englishman - these two parts of him co-existing, but never quite attaining synthesis. On a more personal level, Crocker also offers us glimpses of Nehru literally beating off hordes of mediapersons when receiving a guest of state and banning fairytales from his daughter's childhood (such was his distaste for 'unreal' things Crocker tells us).
All in all this is a cool, informed and acute account of Nehru's achievements and failures. The picture of Nehru which emerges from these pages is that of a rather reluctant statesman, misled at times by those he trusted overmuch (Krishna Menon), at times betrayed by his own misjudgements (Kashmir). For all his faults, however, a man with great compassion, greater grace, and an immense will to do good for his country, and his world.
Non-alignment is perhaps treated unfairly by Crocker, who at times reads it as myopic. However, while not giving it much credit initially, Crocker mentions the lack of real alternatives to non-alignment available to a person in Nehru's place, and counts it as one of his contributions to world peace.
Crocker also criticizes Nehru for being "too hasty" in his pursuit of decolonisation and independence. He perceives Nehru's hastiness as having shown unfortunate results in many decolonised states, which have seen dictatorships emerge - and India itself is seen in danger of failing to sustain parliamentary democracy. Crocker himself is perhaps not entirely free of traces of a colonial mindset when he offers this criticism, and which can be seen emerging occasionally throughout the book, as when he speaks of the "Indian mind" - usually negatively. Crocker's rather imperial tone is also hard to miss when he speaks of the "mob".
Nehru's most important contribution within India, according to Crocker, is his fostering of progressive attitudes, notably the improvement of the condition of women and the oppressed castes. His emphasis on the cultivation of scientific temper and the attempt to emancipate large portions of the Indian public from superstition is also lauded. However, this is tempered by noting Nehru's distance from 'Indian sensibilities' (at least on some counts, especially religion), which meant that he was not quite in touch with the population he had the responsibility of governing. This, Crocker tells us, was largely due to his being born an Indian, but bred an Englishman - these two parts of him co-existing, but never quite attaining synthesis. On a more personal level, Crocker also offers us glimpses of Nehru literally beating off hordes of mediapersons when receiving a guest of state and banning fairytales from his daughter's childhood (such was his distaste for 'unreal' things Crocker tells us).
All in all this is a cool, informed and acute account of Nehru's achievements and failures. The picture of Nehru which emerges from these pages is that of a rather reluctant statesman, misled at times by those he trusted overmuch (Krishna Menon), at times betrayed by his own misjudgements (Kashmir). For all his faults, however, a man with great compassion, greater grace, and an immense will to do good for his country, and his world.
December 25, 2024
[Read: Nov 2020]
Quite often I get this feeling that humongous annals of history are so meticulously preserved not because people want to learn from them but so that the present can absolve itself for all its failures by putting the blame on the past.
I had never planned to read this book. Honestly, I shouldn’t have needed to. I had read a good amount of Indian independence history and what followed it and had arrived at the conclusion that – whether they were rational or not, the decisions that have been taken by a handful of people some 70-80 years ago, have led us to where we are today. We can’t change the past but can certainly learn from the good and the bad while acknowledging the advantage of hindsight.
BUT the fierce discussions that happen these days - among my friends, colleagues and family - on how all our problems are nothing but deliberate brainchild of one man who died more than 50 years ago, is what triggered my interest in this book. What really tickles my neurons is the attached narrative on how another man of today is going to change all that. There are other circles which I belong to – where the narrative is diametrically opposite with blame and applaud reserved for each of the two but in reverse.
We are just done with elections in one of the poorest states of the country. And yes, I agree – we really didn’t have a better option than what we’ve got. But somehow people forget that this has been the tragedy since the beginning of the human civilisation. We end up with those people as our leaders who wouldn’t do (or rather qualify for) any other job. What astounds me is the expectations that people have from these position holders.
Now, coming back to the book – I wanted to see how exactly is one man responsible for everything wrong with us today. I always believed that there were bad decisions (just the way with any other leader in our country or the world) but the India of 1947 inherited by those leaders was very different from the India handed over to our leaders today.
Irrespective of what his fans or haters say, I don’t see Nehru to be any different from any other leader of the world. He had his bhakts and naysayers. He used propaganda machinery, just like everyone else. He did things which are benefitting us even today and things that we are still paying penalty for. He was as flawed as anyone else in his place. And simply because that’s how humans are.
There are no gods. There never were. There would never be.
Quite often I get this feeling that humongous annals of history are so meticulously preserved not because people want to learn from them but so that the present can absolve itself for all its failures by putting the blame on the past.
I had never planned to read this book. Honestly, I shouldn’t have needed to. I had read a good amount of Indian independence history and what followed it and had arrived at the conclusion that – whether they were rational or not, the decisions that have been taken by a handful of people some 70-80 years ago, have led us to where we are today. We can’t change the past but can certainly learn from the good and the bad while acknowledging the advantage of hindsight.
BUT the fierce discussions that happen these days - among my friends, colleagues and family - on how all our problems are nothing but deliberate brainchild of one man who died more than 50 years ago, is what triggered my interest in this book. What really tickles my neurons is the attached narrative on how another man of today is going to change all that. There are other circles which I belong to – where the narrative is diametrically opposite with blame and applaud reserved for each of the two but in reverse.
We are just done with elections in one of the poorest states of the country. And yes, I agree – we really didn’t have a better option than what we’ve got. But somehow people forget that this has been the tragedy since the beginning of the human civilisation. We end up with those people as our leaders who wouldn’t do (or rather qualify for) any other job. What astounds me is the expectations that people have from these position holders.
Now, coming back to the book – I wanted to see how exactly is one man responsible for everything wrong with us today. I always believed that there were bad decisions (just the way with any other leader in our country or the world) but the India of 1947 inherited by those leaders was very different from the India handed over to our leaders today.
Irrespective of what his fans or haters say, I don’t see Nehru to be any different from any other leader of the world. He had his bhakts and naysayers. He used propaganda machinery, just like everyone else. He did things which are benefitting us even today and things that we are still paying penalty for. He was as flawed as anyone else in his place. And simply because that’s how humans are.
There are no gods. There never were. There would never be.
March 4, 2018
Probably the best single volume biography of Nehru still in print. The author, an Australian diplomat had the advantage of interacting with Nehru on an almost daily basis for 8 years over two postings to New Delhi. Being a foreigner, he has an element of objectivity and distance from his subject but like so many he was drawn in by Nehru's character and charisma; he has great affection and indeed one can discern love for his subject. At the same time being a non-Indian, he has enough distance to be aware of his subjects faults and foibles, as well as able to offer a critical assessment of his achievements and failures.
Some critiques like that of Nehru's economic policy and planning can be dismissed as they follow traditional neo-liberal and conservative critiques, which fail to appreciate the successes and improvements that adopting planning and public investment in a mixed economy actually did and the role it played in laying the foundation for more market-orientated policies and growth later on. Where he is good is in noting Nehru's psychological commitment to socialism and eradicating poverty and why someone from an upper middle class background would have so much empathy and invest so much energy in this goal.
More importantly, especially for current readers and Indians is his outline of Nehru's failures and limitations - we frequently hear of Nehru's so-called idealistic and moral foreign policy; yet as the annexation of Goa shows, this was largely a farce when it came to issues where Indian interests were directly at stake. Like the China conflict of 1962, what is important to note how ruthless Indian policy could be, in its use of propaganda, deception, covert activities and use of military force. The Goan episode, though inevitable, leaves a bad taste in the mouth; especially with the ham-handed lies and obfuscation engaged in by Nehru.
On Kashmir, he also admirably cuts through a lot of the legalistic arguements to point out that India committed itself to holding a plebiscite and then refused to hole one; primarily because it thought that it wouldn't win one in the Valley. This along with suppression of genuine democracy and the installation of the corrupt and repressive Bakshi regime laid the seeds to the rebellion that broke out in the 1990s.
Most interestingly and also alarmingly relevant today; is his prediction that the use of the mob by both Nehru and to a lesser extent Gandhi; despite their efforts and best intentions, has led to a legitimisation of using violence in public life and politics which would endure. The communal violence as well as mob mentality over lynching of minorities and other victimised groups which has plagued India increasingly over the last decade. becomes more easily understandable once this thread is explored.
Some of Crocker's views now seem very dated and bordering on racist; such as his comments on Indians national characteristics and the nature of Hinduism, indicate his limited scholarly knowledge of the topic. This is bound to ruffle Indian feathers and will account for some of the hostility towards the book by other reviewers.
It is however still well worth-reading.
Some critiques like that of Nehru's economic policy and planning can be dismissed as they follow traditional neo-liberal and conservative critiques, which fail to appreciate the successes and improvements that adopting planning and public investment in a mixed economy actually did and the role it played in laying the foundation for more market-orientated policies and growth later on. Where he is good is in noting Nehru's psychological commitment to socialism and eradicating poverty and why someone from an upper middle class background would have so much empathy and invest so much energy in this goal.
More importantly, especially for current readers and Indians is his outline of Nehru's failures and limitations - we frequently hear of Nehru's so-called idealistic and moral foreign policy; yet as the annexation of Goa shows, this was largely a farce when it came to issues where Indian interests were directly at stake. Like the China conflict of 1962, what is important to note how ruthless Indian policy could be, in its use of propaganda, deception, covert activities and use of military force. The Goan episode, though inevitable, leaves a bad taste in the mouth; especially with the ham-handed lies and obfuscation engaged in by Nehru.
On Kashmir, he also admirably cuts through a lot of the legalistic arguements to point out that India committed itself to holding a plebiscite and then refused to hole one; primarily because it thought that it wouldn't win one in the Valley. This along with suppression of genuine democracy and the installation of the corrupt and repressive Bakshi regime laid the seeds to the rebellion that broke out in the 1990s.
Most interestingly and also alarmingly relevant today; is his prediction that the use of the mob by both Nehru and to a lesser extent Gandhi; despite their efforts and best intentions, has led to a legitimisation of using violence in public life and politics which would endure. The communal violence as well as mob mentality over lynching of minorities and other victimised groups which has plagued India increasingly over the last decade. becomes more easily understandable once this thread is explored.
Some of Crocker's views now seem very dated and bordering on racist; such as his comments on Indians national characteristics and the nature of Hinduism, indicate his limited scholarly knowledge of the topic. This is bound to ruffle Indian feathers and will account for some of the hostility towards the book by other reviewers.
It is however still well worth-reading.
August 6, 2020
A relatively short book written in the wake of Nehru's death, by the then Australian High Commissioner to India. The author had considerable personal interaction with India’s first Prime Minister and his book is evidence of his considerable admiration for the man. He notes Nehru’s class and grace, his eloquence, and his brilliant mind – noting that other than one or two, most heads of state from other countries were yokels in front of him. He also captures Nehru’s ambivalent relationship to India and Indians – that he loved the former, and was somewhat ashamed by the latter.
While the author, like I mentioned, was an admirer of Nehru, he is also conscientious in recording the great man’s flaws. For all his gifts, Nehru for some reason lacked a certain crude forcefulness that would have aided him immeasurably in recasting India in his image. The author – in a gambit I thought was very unusual for a non-Indian author – speculates that this might have been due to Nehru’s brahmin heritage; the cast of mind that is always able to see different sides of an issue, and for whom thus, crude forcefulness in resolving an issue would have been ‘vulgar’.
Other than an overview of the man’s admirable personal qualities, there is also an extensive discussion on the various aspects of Nehru’s premiership. The author is sympathetic towards Nehru’s difficulties in industrializing an essentially pre-modern country, but is somewhat baffled by the latter’s handling of Kashmir. Even the annexation of Goa, the author thinks of as a step unworthy of Nehru.
All in all, this is a relatively short book that, while stopping well short of being a hagiography, gives a favourable impression of a great man who has far too easily been slandered in the recent past.
While the author, like I mentioned, was an admirer of Nehru, he is also conscientious in recording the great man’s flaws. For all his gifts, Nehru for some reason lacked a certain crude forcefulness that would have aided him immeasurably in recasting India in his image. The author – in a gambit I thought was very unusual for a non-Indian author – speculates that this might have been due to Nehru’s brahmin heritage; the cast of mind that is always able to see different sides of an issue, and for whom thus, crude forcefulness in resolving an issue would have been ‘vulgar’.
Other than an overview of the man’s admirable personal qualities, there is also an extensive discussion on the various aspects of Nehru’s premiership. The author is sympathetic towards Nehru’s difficulties in industrializing an essentially pre-modern country, but is somewhat baffled by the latter’s handling of Kashmir. Even the annexation of Goa, the author thinks of as a step unworthy of Nehru.
All in all, this is a relatively short book that, while stopping well short of being a hagiography, gives a favourable impression of a great man who has far too easily been slandered in the recent past.
December 28, 2020
Walter Crocker's narrative (call it a biography) from the years he spent in proximity to Nehru. This is an objective account that is scathing in many parts about Nehru's personal and leadership shortcomings. It could only have been written by a person detached from India and the awe Indians had for Nehru.
And yet, in parts it is very reverential of Nehru. Nehru, a person who lived with ironies, dilemmas, paradoxes...and yet did the best he could in the times he led in. It isn't a wonder that he made the mistakes he made; it is a wonder he made so few considering the absolute power he had, the myriad problems India suffered from, and the sheer hopelessness of the rest of the leadership after Patel, Azad, passed and Jayaprakash Narayan and C Rajagopalachari refused to work with Nehru. One can only wonder what miracles we may have achieved with CR's belief in market based solutions, JP's Gandhian Socialism, and Nehru's centrist, secular beliefs. Too bad.
And yet, in parts it is very reverential of Nehru. Nehru, a person who lived with ironies, dilemmas, paradoxes...and yet did the best he could in the times he led in. It isn't a wonder that he made the mistakes he made; it is a wonder he made so few considering the absolute power he had, the myriad problems India suffered from, and the sheer hopelessness of the rest of the leadership after Patel, Azad, passed and Jayaprakash Narayan and C Rajagopalachari refused to work with Nehru. One can only wonder what miracles we may have achieved with CR's belief in market based solutions, JP's Gandhian Socialism, and Nehru's centrist, secular beliefs. Too bad.
July 15, 2014
The best shorter biography of Jawaharlal Nehru . Most of the predictions made by Crocker in 1966 ( The date of publication of the book) have come true in later times underlining the prescience of his thoughts.
The foreword by Ram Guha in the reprint edition is equally brilliant.
The foreword by Ram Guha in the reprint edition is equally brilliant.
January 20, 2017
The writer was a contemporary of the noble and charismatic world figure Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, but that is where any common ground - other than time spent by Crocker in India - ends.
Nehru was more than charismatic and beloved leader, noble of spirit and prince of soul, someone who had a not only very acute mind but a seeking intellectual thirst that went on regardless of humongous work, age and strife, someone who took trouble to be nice and courteous in trying circumstances, was brought up in comparative wealth but gave it all up for independence fight and then for India. That is a small and incomplete summary of what Crocker goes on to describe about Nehru, and it is all too true and more.
But the writing of Crocker in this work, not in style but in substance and level of perception, is so skewed between two poles of admiration of the man on one side and complete disdain or worse for the nation, the culture, the whole background, that one can only surmise either that the writer is unaware just how thoroughly, how firmly he is rooted in his colonial, racist, and religious background, to the extent of automatically assuming all other alternatives are beneath consideration, not worthy of attempting to understand, certainly not of respect and never as good as those he was familiar with - or, that this book, contrary to asserted claim, is not a work of the one writer mentioned, but has whole chapters of insertions of material that is derogatory and more, often enough to the point of vicious accusations or callous lies, assaulting India in general, Hindus and Hinduism more pointedly, and Nehru to the extent he is involved or did not please the erstwhile colonial masters.
Lest it seem far fetched, Crocker was indeed a part of British colonial forces stationed in India and disliked it intensely, and was thereby likely prejudiced as were most of those of his background, more sympathetic to muslims and church communities as the British ruling most often were, which is not hidden in this book except by omission of any mention of horrendous massacres perpetrated against Hindus by muslims or against the indigenous by rulers in Goa.
Such prejudice is exhibited here as often with explicit condemnation of one side as with either lack of mentioning of the other, as it is with even complete lies on side of his prejudice - for example he mentions the differences between what is termed South India and what is normally understood as North, which is generally understood as north or south of the ancient mountain range across middle, Vindhya; what he specifically, repeatedly mentions as the difference is "Hindu revivalism", which makes one wonder if he intends to force the reader to accept his unspecified assertion that Hinduism is dead and better off so.
In reality, which he either intends to cover up with this trick or refuses to see, or is blind to, is that it is only someone in a state of unconsciousness, coma or at the very least in a state understood opposite of well being, that needs to be revived, not someone conscious and relatively well.
With over a millennium of deadly onslaughts of islamic invaders marauding, looting, ruling and generally destroying the indigenous culture of India in general and Hinduism in particular, and that too quite intentionally, deliberately, zealously so, the regions more under the islamic rules were those where any need of reviving and reasserting were felt; and Hinduism and Indian culture that were dormant, beleaguered but far from wiped out (unlike anywhere other than in India, indigenous culture in India was not wiped out completely as it was elsewhere under islamic onslaught), were given a fresh breath of respite when islamic rule gave way to British (or French) colonial rule. (In Goa the story was different, and Portuguese rule competed well with the worst of islamic in attempted annihilation of Indian culture, and of Hinduism.)
There are many pointers to the truth of this, from relative freedom of women in society to changed rituals of traditional weddings and more, to see that this divide across north and south is related to the relative extent and force of islamic rule of the regions. And similar pattern can be seen in other parts, west and east and northeast and what was northwest before partition.
Another example, his assertion that Goa was a part of Portugal (rather than a colony, as is obvious), and had no problem and was people with catholics while a few Indians had migrated (did he think Goa was brought like a ship from Portugal and fixed to rest of India? one wonders) - completely ignoring the massacres perpetrated by Portugal against Hindus, complete outlawing of Hindu traditions and even weddings so much so the people of Goa hurried through every religious ceremony (and still do, from centuries of habit of fear ingrained) lest the Portugese soldiers come and wreak havoc, and other atrocities he simply denies ever took place.
A similar insistence on his part goes on against India in other matters such as relations with neighbours, giving equal benefit of doubt at best and questioning if India would stay a democracy post Nehru. Perhaps an example of his racism that is not clear as racism to him, though, is about Nagaland. Crocker points out that NEFA (now named Arunachal Pradesh, a state at northeast boundary of India), rightfully does not belong to India because not only China questions it but the people are of "mongoloid" features. He says the same of Nagas, and it is not clear if he knows the two are separate regions. But clearly, it is racist to insist that races cannot be divided across national boundaries, and that invaders' and migrants' rights supersede those of indigenous? He takes care of those by complete neglect of relevant history (such as Naga are part of Mahabhaarataa, hence not strangers to India and not connected to India only due to British as he seems to claim) and more - just as British did it by the invention of Aryan migration theory, discrediting and disfranchising all of Hindus of India except those of south India.
In reality, Aryans were never supposed to be a race as such but a culture of civilised code of conduct, the code intricate and taught in society painstakingly in families, homes and live-in schools. The very word Aarya relates to Light, not colour of skin or other physical features but to a standard of behaviour related to an enlightened mind and a soul awakened.
That this was misunderstood by Europe, or was deliberately twisted to suit European prejudices, or worse, due to Macaulay doctrine of separating everything good of India from India and deliberately breaking the spirit of India, is swept under the rug as is the deliberate use of Swastika, which the very word means "well being", for purposes far from well being and in fact for evil.
Crocker comes across as, at best, struggling with his more than evident admiration and adoration of a prince of soul that was Jawaharlal Nehru, and compensating by his treatment of all that is India, people and history and culture of India, Hindus, and so on; at worst, as someone who allowed insertion of whole chapters of matter to that effect for that purpose that was at most rewritten by him so the writing style as such at a superficial level is not too discordant with his adoration of Nehru.
But what is indubitably true is that the great soul that was Nehru comes alive in reading this work, and that is in spite of really very little detail about him of a personal nature as such. For anyone even slightly familiar with the era or the halo of the figure, reading this is a deja vu.
September 23, 2021
This book, written by an Australian diplomat who served as Australia's High Commissioner to India for nearly a decade, remained obscure and unread for long-time when Ram Guha revived interest in it. This new edition is issued with Ram Guha's Introduction. It is a brief book running into less than 200 pages. It is not quite a biography, rather a thematic essay on Nehru. Elegantly written, it reads well even after fifty years of its publication.
Crocker writing from a British conservative perspective is largely critical of Nehru's record. He gives credit to Nehru for keeping India united and for nurturing pluralism and parliamentary democracy. Crocker is extremely critical of Nehru's stewardship of the economy. According to Crocker, Nehru's economic policies, focused as they were on capital industries, kept India poor, resulted in gross inefficiencies and produced little economic growth. Crocker faults Nehru's foreign policy for its smug moralism, lack of realism and for ignoring national interest. While Crocker appreciates Nehru's efforts to modernise Indian society, Nehru erred in creating a leviathan state that inevitably became corrupt and inefficient. Nehru stayed on in the centre stage for too long and failed to nurture the next generation of leaders.
Altogether it is a balanced assessment of Nehru.
Crocker writing from a British conservative perspective is largely critical of Nehru's record. He gives credit to Nehru for keeping India united and for nurturing pluralism and parliamentary democracy. Crocker is extremely critical of Nehru's stewardship of the economy. According to Crocker, Nehru's economic policies, focused as they were on capital industries, kept India poor, resulted in gross inefficiencies and produced little economic growth. Crocker faults Nehru's foreign policy for its smug moralism, lack of realism and for ignoring national interest. While Crocker appreciates Nehru's efforts to modernise Indian society, Nehru erred in creating a leviathan state that inevitably became corrupt and inefficient. Nehru stayed on in the centre stage for too long and failed to nurture the next generation of leaders.
Altogether it is a balanced assessment of Nehru.
July 5, 2020
Jawaharlal Nehru : The Man Of All Seasons
--------------------------------------------------------------------
“In bravery, he is not to be surpassed. Who can excel him in the love of country? He is rash and impetuous, say some — and if he has the dash and rashness of a warrior, he also has the prudence of a statesman — he is pure as a crystal, he is truthful beyond suspicion. He is a knight sans peur, sans reproche – the nation is safe in his hands.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Nehru, A contemporary's estimate is one of best written book I've came across on him. Within a few hundred pages, the author judiciously unravelled him. His achievements, his mistakes, and those things that made him the kind of man he was, is mentioned by the author.
For the detailed review you can visit - https://dontbignorant.in/jawaharlal-n...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
“In bravery, he is not to be surpassed. Who can excel him in the love of country? He is rash and impetuous, say some — and if he has the dash and rashness of a warrior, he also has the prudence of a statesman — he is pure as a crystal, he is truthful beyond suspicion. He is a knight sans peur, sans reproche – the nation is safe in his hands.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Nehru, A contemporary's estimate is one of best written book I've came across on him. Within a few hundred pages, the author judiciously unravelled him. His achievements, his mistakes, and those things that made him the kind of man he was, is mentioned by the author.
For the detailed review you can visit - https://dontbignorant.in/jawaharlal-n...
January 20, 2017
The writer was a contemporary of the noble and charismatic world figure Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, but that is where any common ground - other than time spent by Crocker in India - ends.
Nehru was more than charismatic and beloved leader, noble of spirit and prince of soul, someone who had a not only very acute mind but a seeking intellectual thirst that went on regardless of humongous work, age and strife, someone who took trouble to be nice and courteous in trying circumstances, was brought up in comparative wealth but gave it all up for independence fight and then for India. That is a small and incomplete summary of what Crocker goes on to describe about Nehru, and it is all too true and more.
But the writing of Crocker in this work, not in style but in substance and level of perception, is so skewed between two poles of admiration of the man on one side and complete disdain or worse for the nation, the culture, the whole background, that one can only surmise either that the writer is unaware just how thoroughly, how firmly he is rooted in his colonial, racist, and religious background, to the extent of automatically assuming all other alternatives are beneath consideration, not worthy of attempting to understand, certainly not of respect and never as good as those he was familiar with - or, that this book, contrary to asserted claim, is not a work of the one writer mentioned, but has whole chapters of insertions of material that is derogatory and more, often enough to the point of vicious accusations or callous lies, assaulting India in general, Hindus and Hinduism more pointedly, and Nehru to the extent he is involved or did not please the erstwhile colonial masters.
Lest it seem far fetched, Crocker was indeed a part of British colonial forces stationed in India and disliked it intensely, and was thereby likely prejudiced as were most of those of his background, more sympathetic to muslims and church communities as the British ruling most often were, which is not hidden in this book except by omission of any mention of horrendous massacres perpetrated against Hindus by muslims or against the indigenous by rulers in Goa.
Such prejudice is exhibited here as often with explicit condemnation of one side as with either lack of mentioning of the other, as it is with even complete lies on side of his prejudice - for example he mentions the differences between what is termed South India and what is normally understood as North, which is generally understood as north or south of the ancient mountain range across middle, Vindhya; what he specifically, repeatedly mentions as the difference is "Hindu revivalism", which makes one wonder if he intends to force the reader to accept his unspecified assertion that Hinduism is dead and better off so.
In reality, which he either intends to cover up with this trick or refuses to see, or is blind to, is that it is only someone in a state of unconsciousness, coma or at the very least in a state understood opposite of well being, that needs to be revived, not someone conscious and relatively well.
With over a millennium of deadly onslaughts of islamic invaders marauding, looting, ruling and generally destroying the indigenous culture of India in general and Hinduism in particular, and that too quite intentionally, deliberately, zealously so, the regions more under the islamic rules were those where any need of reviving and reasserting were felt; and Hinduism and Indian culture that were dormant, beleaguered but far from wiped out (unlike anywhere other than in India, indigenous culture in India was not wiped out completely as it was elsewhere under islamic onslaught), were given a fresh breath of respite when islamic rule gave way to British (or French) colonial rule. (In Goa the story was different, and Portuguese rule competed well with the worst of islamic in attempted annihilation of Indian culture, and of Hinduism.)
There are many pointers to the truth of this, from relative freedom of women in society to changed rituals of traditional weddings and more, to see that this divide across north and south is related to the relative extent and force of islamic rule of the regions. And similar pattern can be seen in other parts, west and east and northeast and what was northwest before partition.
Another example, his assertion that Goa was a part of Portugal (rather than a colony, as is obvious), and had no problem and was people with catholics while a few Indians had migrated (did he think Goa was brought like a ship from Portugal and fixed to rest of India? one wonders) - completely ignoring the massacres perpetrated by Portugal against Hindus, complete outlawing of Hindu traditions and even weddings so much so the people of Goa hurried through every religious ceremony (and still do, from centuries of habit of fear ingrained) lest the Portugese soldiers come and wreak havoc, and other atrocities he simply denies ever took place.
A similar insistence on his part goes on against India in other matters such as relations with neighbours, giving equal benefit of doubt at best and questioning if India would stay a democracy post Nehru. Perhaps an example of his racism that is not clear as racism to him, though, is about Nagaland. Crocker points out that NEFA (now named Arunachal Pradesh, a state at northeast boundary of India), rightfully does not belong to India because not only China questions it but the people are of "mongoloid" features. He says the same of Nagas, and it is not clear if he knows the two are separate regions. But clearly, it is racist to insist that races cannot be divided across national boundaries, and that invaders' and migrants' rights supersede those of indigenous? He takes care of those by complete neglect of relevant history (such as Naga are part of Mahabhaarataa, hence not strangers to India and not connected to India only due to British as he seems to claim) and more - just as British did it by the invention of Aryan migration theory, discrediting and disfranchising all of Hindus of India except those of south India.
In reality, Aryans were never supposed to be a race as such but a culture of civilised code of conduct, the code intricate and taught in society painstakingly in families, homes and live-in schools. The very word Aarya relates to Light, not colour of skin or other physical features but to a standard of behaviour related to an enlightened mind and a soul awakened.
That this was misunderstood by Europe, or was deliberately twisted to suit European prejudices, or worse, due to Macaulay doctrine of separating everything good of India from India and deliberately breaking the spirit of India, is swept under the rug as is the deliberate use of Swastika, which the very word means "well being", for purposes far from well being and in fact for evil.
Crocker comes across as, at best, struggling with his more than evident admiration and adoration of a prince of soul that was Jawaharlal Nehru, and compensating by his treatment of all that is India, people and history and culture of India, Hindus, and so on; at worst, as someone who allowed insertion of whole chapters of matter to that effect for that purpose that was at most rewritten by him so the writing style as such at a superficial level is not too discordant with his adoration of Nehru.
But what is indubitably true is that the great soul that was Nehru comes alive in reading this work, and that is in spite of really very little detail about him of a personal nature as such. For anyone even slightly familiar with the era or the halo of the figure, reading this is a deja vu.
November 28, 2020
It was Ram Guha, who recommended this book for an objective analysis of Nehru. Walter Crocker, an Australian diplomat who worked as high commissioner in India during Nehru's time had observed Nehru closely from the ring side. The book, true to its reputation, is objective. While prising Nehru for his liberalism, humanism, scientific outlook, agnosticism and for his mesmeric Charisma, he hasn't spared him for his weaknesses such as his contradictions, lack of consistency, his inability to notice & prevent the wrong doings with so much authority at his command and his inexplicable indulgences for certain people such as Krishna Menon even in the face of bitter criticism. The author tries to analyse as to why Nehru behaved the way he did. He concedes, by way of explanation, as to how difficult it is to carry on with responsibility of a huge & diverse nation like India without faltering and without exhibiting inconsistencies. He says temperamentally Nehru abhorred authoritarianism and commanding men went against his grain as he tended to see all sides of an issue which made him consider other's point of view. Further the complexity of his mind prevented him from oversimplifying and reducing issues to binaries which is common to the authentic men of action.
From the beginning Nehru was riddled with inconsistencies and dilemmas which remained with him throughout life. The dilemma between rational outlook inherited from Fabians and the religious outlook of poor illiterate majority he has to govern and between his liking for communist aims and his commitment to liberal humanism. Haunted with such dilemmas he tried to find a way to reconcile and act coherently betraying many times the inconsistencies which were dubbed as hypocrisies by his adversaries.
Finally, in the twilight of his long tenure he was disillusioned, tired and broken. He died striving for this great complex nation that is India. However, he left many things undone as he happens to be human and has to leave one day. In the words of Alberto Moravia, the Italian novelist with Nehru’s death India enters a prose epoch implying that it was Poetry for India when he was alive!
From the beginning Nehru was riddled with inconsistencies and dilemmas which remained with him throughout life. The dilemma between rational outlook inherited from Fabians and the religious outlook of poor illiterate majority he has to govern and between his liking for communist aims and his commitment to liberal humanism. Haunted with such dilemmas he tried to find a way to reconcile and act coherently betraying many times the inconsistencies which were dubbed as hypocrisies by his adversaries.
Finally, in the twilight of his long tenure he was disillusioned, tired and broken. He died striving for this great complex nation that is India. However, he left many things undone as he happens to be human and has to leave one day. In the words of Alberto Moravia, the Italian novelist with Nehru’s death India enters a prose epoch implying that it was Poetry for India when he was alive!
September 20, 2017
Crocker has all the qualities one would want from a biographer – he is fair, detached and eager to report the truth as he saw it. In his own words, he watched Nehru out of a 'helpless interest'. And it shows in the book! His language is most clear and his opinions are expressed in great style. The book, however, is vague in references to certain events and people and that dampened an otherwise pleasurable reading.
The book is not a detailed account of Nehru's life and is more about the kind of person Nehru was and what he stood for. The portion about the Chineese invasion is perhaps the most detailed and comprehensive. The writing on Kashmir was cluttered up and scattered and it did little to help me understand the situation better.
The book, however, has depth in making sense of Nehru, the person, his internal inconsistencies and complexities. Crocker observes that there are inherent tensions in Nehru's personality owing to his Western education. His personality, Crocker argues, was more influenced by Western ideals. Nehru tried to bring the rationalism of the West into a country mired in caste and religion and yet it was India that Nehru loved. Crocker also sees a tension between Nehru's polices of Non Alignment and his dependence on foreign aid for the success of his Five Year Plans; between the socialism he supported and the liberal human that he was!
It was these observations that made the book so interesting and it also helped me understand my first Prime Minister.
In one of the concluding paragraphs, Crocker writes, 'It is unlikely that there will be a place in India again for a ruler like Nehru- the aristocratic liberal humanist'. I quite agree.
The book is not a detailed account of Nehru's life and is more about the kind of person Nehru was and what he stood for. The portion about the Chineese invasion is perhaps the most detailed and comprehensive. The writing on Kashmir was cluttered up and scattered and it did little to help me understand the situation better.
The book, however, has depth in making sense of Nehru, the person, his internal inconsistencies and complexities. Crocker observes that there are inherent tensions in Nehru's personality owing to his Western education. His personality, Crocker argues, was more influenced by Western ideals. Nehru tried to bring the rationalism of the West into a country mired in caste and religion and yet it was India that Nehru loved. Crocker also sees a tension between Nehru's polices of Non Alignment and his dependence on foreign aid for the success of his Five Year Plans; between the socialism he supported and the liberal human that he was!
It was these observations that made the book so interesting and it also helped me understand my first Prime Minister.
In one of the concluding paragraphs, Crocker writes, 'It is unlikely that there will be a place in India again for a ruler like Nehru- the aristocratic liberal humanist'. I quite agree.
July 17, 2012
The return to print on Random House and the Ramachandra Guha introduction drew me to this. Walter Crocker, Australian diplomat to India during the times of Nehru, pulls no punches with regard to Nehru's "bad" decisions/judgment during (and leading to) controversial incidents and tries to provide reasonable interpretations. Crocker, however, never hides his admiration for Nehru as a man, as a decent (if not brilliant) intellectual, as a "secularist," and as someone who almost always had the best intentions in mind. Nehru could never shake off the Cambridge in him and the Kashmiri roots, and may also have clung on to power for too long (with no dictatorial designs obviously), but, most importantly, he comes off as a likeable human being in this book. Highly recommended!
December 8, 2020
Truth be told, I picked up the book thinking it’s a hatchet job on Nehru.
Actually it’s anything but.
True, the author doesn’t shy away from highlighting the man’s mistakes and failings.
But the account is clear-eyed and objective. And he praises Nehru for his greatness, without veering towards hagiography.
This edition comes with Ramachandra Guha’s introduction, and according to him this is the best biography of Nehru.
Though written more than half a century ago, Crocker’s observations about India are as relevant as ever.
Must read, if you are interested in politics or history.
Actually it’s anything but.
True, the author doesn’t shy away from highlighting the man’s mistakes and failings.
But the account is clear-eyed and objective. And he praises Nehru for his greatness, without veering towards hagiography.
This edition comes with Ramachandra Guha’s introduction, and according to him this is the best biography of Nehru.
Though written more than half a century ago, Crocker’s observations about India are as relevant as ever.
Must read, if you are interested in politics or history.
October 10, 2021
Last year, I read Ambedkar: Attendant Details which was a compilation of personal recollection from Dr. Ambedkar’s close companions, attendants, and admirers. In that book, the contemporaries of Dr. Ambedkar remarked his not-so-well-known side as a jocular, witty, dog-loving, ambidextrous, wise-examiner, and occasional cook and as a passionate gardener, who knew every botanical name of the plants he grew in his garden. While reading Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate, I found quite a few similarities in their personal life which Walter Crocker touched upon in his 200 pages reflection on Nehru’s less known side.
Walter Crocker was a diplomat who worked as the Australian High Commissioner to India for around ten years when Nehru was the Prime Minister. Having watched Nehru in close quarters, Walter Crocker portrayed his admiration for him, while also being highly critical of some of his policy decisions. As Guha notes down in his forward, Austalia being a non-party to the Cold War, Crocker’s principle political assessment on Nehru, especially his unmerited criticism towards the non-alignment policy, the annexation of Goa, and his sentimental approach towards Kashmir lacks the understanding of contemporary realities. However, having watched Nehru the man in close quarters, his assessment of him is splendid and noteworthy.
Reflecting on Nehru’s personality, Walter Crocker penned down an entire chapter on the daily life of a man who woke up early morning to do his yoga and cooks his breakfast which he followed till the end of his life, who had the habit of reading for an hour or two before going to bed, his love for science, wildlife and garden, his quest towards world peace, his cultivated sense of stoicism and emotional detachment from people, his friendship with Krishna Menon, his love towards Buddhism, his agnosticism, his aversion towards the Indian villages and the tradition of worshipping cow, his moodiness and petulance, his capacity to work long hours with little sleep, and his open-mindedness which never accepted any dogma or isms without scrutiny. It was interesting to note that many contemporaries of Ambedkar had noted some of the same personal traits while remembering him.
Ambedkar once said, ‘the individual and public characters of a leader should be the same, else he will fail in his duties.’ Crocker narrates the many instances he happened to acquire a glimpse of Nehru’s benevolence and kindness towards several people whom he had endlessly helped during their hardships; even the case of intervening in troubles arising over interfaith marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu. While describing Nerhu’s private life, Crocker writes:
‘Nehru was that rare man who is both clever and good. It is hard to be clever. But it is harder still to be good. He was that rare person, the clever man wielding power who remained good. Nehru’s private life differed scarcely at all from his public face.’
On his overall assessment of Nehru, Crocker had waxed eloquent on Nehru who held India together after the partition and the communal bloodshed which followed, built a secular constitution and the necessary institutions to ensure democracy, adhered to his principle of rapid industrialization and scientific progress. He concludes, ‘The task Nehru set himself were tasks for a giant, some of them the tasks of Sisyphus. No ruler could carry such a burden without faltering. He did experience failures but he did not collapse and then he did achieve some success.’
Of Nehru, it can be truly said that he was a hero of his age and times, who has become an outcast of ours. Venerated while he lived – by his countrymen especially, but also by progressive-minded people from all countries – he has been savagely attacked since his death. This book digs deep into the life and times of Jawaharlal Nehru, who was a queer mixture of East and the West, who approached India as a friendly westerner wanting to give her the garb of modernity.
Walter Crocker was a diplomat who worked as the Australian High Commissioner to India for around ten years when Nehru was the Prime Minister. Having watched Nehru in close quarters, Walter Crocker portrayed his admiration for him, while also being highly critical of some of his policy decisions. As Guha notes down in his forward, Austalia being a non-party to the Cold War, Crocker’s principle political assessment on Nehru, especially his unmerited criticism towards the non-alignment policy, the annexation of Goa, and his sentimental approach towards Kashmir lacks the understanding of contemporary realities. However, having watched Nehru the man in close quarters, his assessment of him is splendid and noteworthy.
Reflecting on Nehru’s personality, Walter Crocker penned down an entire chapter on the daily life of a man who woke up early morning to do his yoga and cooks his breakfast which he followed till the end of his life, who had the habit of reading for an hour or two before going to bed, his love for science, wildlife and garden, his quest towards world peace, his cultivated sense of stoicism and emotional detachment from people, his friendship with Krishna Menon, his love towards Buddhism, his agnosticism, his aversion towards the Indian villages and the tradition of worshipping cow, his moodiness and petulance, his capacity to work long hours with little sleep, and his open-mindedness which never accepted any dogma or isms without scrutiny. It was interesting to note that many contemporaries of Ambedkar had noted some of the same personal traits while remembering him.
Ambedkar once said, ‘the individual and public characters of a leader should be the same, else he will fail in his duties.’ Crocker narrates the many instances he happened to acquire a glimpse of Nehru’s benevolence and kindness towards several people whom he had endlessly helped during their hardships; even the case of intervening in troubles arising over interfaith marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu. While describing Nerhu’s private life, Crocker writes:
‘Nehru was that rare man who is both clever and good. It is hard to be clever. But it is harder still to be good. He was that rare person, the clever man wielding power who remained good. Nehru’s private life differed scarcely at all from his public face.’
On his overall assessment of Nehru, Crocker had waxed eloquent on Nehru who held India together after the partition and the communal bloodshed which followed, built a secular constitution and the necessary institutions to ensure democracy, adhered to his principle of rapid industrialization and scientific progress. He concludes, ‘The task Nehru set himself were tasks for a giant, some of them the tasks of Sisyphus. No ruler could carry such a burden without faltering. He did experience failures but he did not collapse and then he did achieve some success.’
Of Nehru, it can be truly said that he was a hero of his age and times, who has become an outcast of ours. Venerated while he lived – by his countrymen especially, but also by progressive-minded people from all countries – he has been savagely attacked since his death. This book digs deep into the life and times of Jawaharlal Nehru, who was a queer mixture of East and the West, who approached India as a friendly westerner wanting to give her the garb of modernity.
January 20, 2017
The writer was a contemporary of the noble and charismatic world figure Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, but that is where any common ground - other than time spent by Crocker in India - ends.
Nehru was more than charismatic and beloved leader, noble of spirit and prince of soul, someone who had a not only very acute mind but a seeking intellectual thirst that went on regardless of humongous work, age and strife, someone who took trouble to be nice and courteous in trying circumstances, was brought up in comparative wealth but gave it all up for independence fight and then for India. That is a small and incomplete summary of what Crocker goes on to describe about Nehru, and it is all too true and more.
But the writing of Crocker in this work, not in style but in substance and level of perception, is so skewed between two poles of admiration of the man on one side and complete disdain or worse for the nation, the culture, the whole background, that one can only surmise either that the writer is unaware just how thoroughly, how firmly he is rooted in his colonial, racist, and religious background, to the extent of automatically assuming all other alternatives are beneath consideration, not worthy of attempting to understand, certainly not of respect and never as good as those he was familiar with - or, that this book, contrary to asserted claim, is not a work of the one writer mentioned, but has whole chapters of insertions of material that is derogatory and more, often enough to the point of vicious accusations or callous lies, assaulting India in general, Hindus and Hinduism more pointedly, and Nehru to the extent he is involved or did not please the erstwhile colonial masters.
Lest it seem far fetched, Crocker was indeed a part of British colonial forces stationed in India and disliked it intensely, and was thereby likely prejudiced as were most of those of his background, more sympathetic to muslims and church communities as the British ruling most often were, which is not hidden in this book except by omission of any mention of horrendous massacres perpetrated against Hindus by muslims or against the indigenous by rulers in Goa.
Such prejudice is exhibited here as often with explicit condemnation of one side as with either lack of mentioning of the other, as it is with even complete lies on side of his prejudice - for example he mentions the differences between what is termed South India and what is normally understood as North, which is generally understood as north or south of the ancient mountain range across middle, Vindhya; what he specifically, repeatedly mentions as the difference is "Hindu revivalism", which makes one wonder if he intends to force the reader to accept his unspecified assertion that Hinduism is dead and better off so.
In reality, which he either intends to cover up with this trick or refuses to see, or is blind to, is that it is only someone in a state of unconsciousness, coma or at the very least in a state understood opposite of well being, that needs to be revived, not someone conscious and relatively well.
With over a millennium of deadly onslaughts of islamic invaders marauding, looting, ruling and generally destroying the indigenous culture of India in general and Hinduism in particular, and that too quite intentionally, deliberately, zealously so, the regions more under the islamic rules were those where any need of reviving and reasserting were felt; and Hinduism and Indian culture that were dormant, beleaguered but far from wiped out (unlike anywhere other than in India, indigenous culture in India was not wiped out completely as it was elsewhere under islamic onslaught), were given a fresh breath of respite when islamic rule gave way to British (or French) colonial rule. (In Goa the story was different, and Portuguese rule competed well with the worst of islamic in attempted annihilation of Indian culture, and of Hinduism.)
There are many pointers to the truth of this, from relative freedom of women in society to changed rituals of traditional weddings and more, to see that this divide across north and south is related to the relative extent and force of islamic rule of the regions. And similar pattern can be seen in other parts, west and east and northeast and what was northwest before partition.
Another example, his assertion that Goa was a part of Portugal (rather than a colony, as is obvious), and had no problem and was people with catholics while a few Indians had migrated (did he think Goa was brought like a ship from Portugal and fixed to rest of India? one wonders) - completely ignoring the massacres perpetrated by Portugal against Hindus, complete outlawing of Hindu traditions and even weddings so much so the people of Goa hurried through every religious ceremony (and still do, from centuries of habit of fear ingrained) lest the Portugese soldiers come and wreak havoc, and other atrocities he simply denies ever took place.
A similar insistence on his part goes on against India in other matters such as relations with neighbours, giving equal benefit of doubt at best and questioning if India would stay a democracy post Nehru. Perhaps an example of his racism that is not clear as racism to him, though, is about Nagaland. Crocker points out that NEFA (now named Arunachal Pradesh, a state at northeast boundary of India), rightfully does not belong to India because not only China questions it but the people are of "mongoloid" features. He says the same of Nagas, and it is not clear if he knows the two are separate regions. But clearly, it is racist to insist that races cannot be divided across national boundaries, and that invaders' and migrants' rights supersede those of indigenous? He takes care of those by complete neglect of relevant history (such as Naga are part of Mahabhaarataa, hence not strangers to India and not connected to India only due to British as he seems to claim) and more - just as British did it by the invention of Aryan migration theory, discrediting and disfranchising all of Hindus of India except those of south India.
In reality, Aryans were never supposed to be a race as such but a culture of civilised code of conduct, the code intricate and taught in society painstakingly in families, homes and live-in schools. The very word Aarya relates to Light, not colour of skin or other physical features but to a standard of behaviour related to an enlightened mind and a soul awakened.
That this was misunderstood by Europe, or was deliberately twisted to suit European prejudices, or worse, due to Macaulay doctrine of separating everything good of India from India and deliberately breaking the spirit of India, is swept under the rug as is the deliberate use of Swastika, which the very word means "well being", for purposes far from well being and in fact for evil.
Crocker comes across as, at best, struggling with his more than evident admiration and adoration of a prince of soul that was Jawaharlal Nehru, and compensating by his treatment of all that is India, people and history and culture of India, Hindus, and so on; at worst, as someone who allowed insertion of whole chapters of matter to that effect for that purpose that was at most rewritten by him so the writing style as such at a superficial level is not too discordant with his adoration of Nehru.
But what is indubitably true is that the great soul that was Nehru comes alive in reading this work, and that is in spite of really very little detail about him of a personal nature as such. For anyone even slightly familiar with the era or the halo of the figure, reading this is a deja vu.
October 11, 2020
We live in times where it is fashionable to blame Nehru for just about everyone of our country's ills and to dismiss his legacy. Most people who do that are informed more by their political and ideological predilections than they are by an accurate reading of history. In many cases Nehru is not even blamed for the right things!!! This book is a useful read in our times. Even if only to at least blame Nehru for the things he ought to be blamed for!!!
This book has two advantages. It is written by a contemporary of Nehru and it is written by a foreigner. Crocker witnessed history as it was being made. He knows the times that he was writing about. He has a unique perspective that would denied to modern day historians who necessarily have to depend on second hand sources and references. His being a foreigner lends a balance to his observations ,an advantage that would be denied any Indian attempting a biography.
Ofcourse this has certain disadvantages as well. An imperfect understanding of caste for instance. The author seems to lend Brahmins an undue and totally undeserved aura of mysticism ,greatness and intellectual superiority. But some of these disadvantages not withstanding it is a really good book.
It is full of admiration and fascination for the subject and yet retains cool objectivity in the assessment of the subject's failures. Objectivity and compassion is a rare balance to carry off and Crocker does it quite well.
It also gives us a sense of the many facets of Nehru , his many virtues and his many failings. Nehru , the revolutionary , Nehru the PM , Nehru the writer , Nehru the aesthete. It is important to take a note of all of these because our contemporary assessments of Nehru are straitjacketed into narrow facets. It is important for us to remember his selfless service , his intellectual and moral force and his integrity , while at the same time take a note of his many failings. It is a greeat legacy that NEhru has left us- flawed may be at times , but great nevertheless.
This book is a useful reminder that all our heroes have feet of clay but that doesnt make them any less of heroes.
This book has two advantages. It is written by a contemporary of Nehru and it is written by a foreigner. Crocker witnessed history as it was being made. He knows the times that he was writing about. He has a unique perspective that would denied to modern day historians who necessarily have to depend on second hand sources and references. His being a foreigner lends a balance to his observations ,an advantage that would be denied any Indian attempting a biography.
Ofcourse this has certain disadvantages as well. An imperfect understanding of caste for instance. The author seems to lend Brahmins an undue and totally undeserved aura of mysticism ,greatness and intellectual superiority. But some of these disadvantages not withstanding it is a really good book.
It is full of admiration and fascination for the subject and yet retains cool objectivity in the assessment of the subject's failures. Objectivity and compassion is a rare balance to carry off and Crocker does it quite well.
It also gives us a sense of the many facets of Nehru , his many virtues and his many failings. Nehru , the revolutionary , Nehru the PM , Nehru the writer , Nehru the aesthete. It is important to take a note of all of these because our contemporary assessments of Nehru are straitjacketed into narrow facets. It is important for us to remember his selfless service , his intellectual and moral force and his integrity , while at the same time take a note of his many failings. It is a greeat legacy that NEhru has left us- flawed may be at times , but great nevertheless.
This book is a useful reminder that all our heroes have feet of clay but that doesnt make them any less of heroes.
July 29, 2025
Anyone who knows me beyond a basis surface level knows my admiration for Jawaharlal Nehru. His unrelenting fight for rationalism and liberty during India's National Movement remains an inspiration for my political ideals, as well as his questing mind being inspiration for my education. That being said, I must admit that my admiration for the man was maybe too idealistic—an admiration fueled by the mythical status Nehru acquired during his time. Walter Crocker does a great job of cutting through this mythology to deliver the reader a seemingly true, or at least truer, idea of who Nehru really was.
Crocker is not swayed by patriotism, him hailing from Australia as a diplomat for India. This allows for his respect for Nehru to come from a place of truthfulness, not one marred by preconceived notions. Even writings of Nehru's blunders are written with respect, though biting in tone. Crocker does not allow for his admiration of Nehru to prevent his seeing of Nehru's shortcomings. Matters of foreign relations, clearly Crocker's forte, are written with dizzying detail, to the point where I'd request Crocker to use a few more commas; though, I thoroughly appreciate the attention given to the matters.
My opinion of Nehru has not changed but has certainly become more nuanced. That was my hope in reading a book such as this; it worried me that I unabashedly admired a politician. Thanks to Walter Crocker, I certainly admire Nehru but perhaps not without criticism. His stubbornness was certainly his folly, particularly in the Invasion of Goa. He insisted so much upon crafting a perfect India that he wouldn't let go of his prime ministership for 16 years, very much to the detriment of the nation. And his command over India's "five years plan" led to his inspiring ideas to be bogged down by poor planning.
Regardless, I don't believe India will ever have a leader such as Nehru again. As Romila Thapar reminisces, "the premiership of Nehru was about the only time when we could claim that we were moving towards a democracy".
Crocker is not swayed by patriotism, him hailing from Australia as a diplomat for India. This allows for his respect for Nehru to come from a place of truthfulness, not one marred by preconceived notions. Even writings of Nehru's blunders are written with respect, though biting in tone. Crocker does not allow for his admiration of Nehru to prevent his seeing of Nehru's shortcomings. Matters of foreign relations, clearly Crocker's forte, are written with dizzying detail, to the point where I'd request Crocker to use a few more commas; though, I thoroughly appreciate the attention given to the matters.
My opinion of Nehru has not changed but has certainly become more nuanced. That was my hope in reading a book such as this; it worried me that I unabashedly admired a politician. Thanks to Walter Crocker, I certainly admire Nehru but perhaps not without criticism. His stubbornness was certainly his folly, particularly in the Invasion of Goa. He insisted so much upon crafting a perfect India that he wouldn't let go of his prime ministership for 16 years, very much to the detriment of the nation. And his command over India's "five years plan" led to his inspiring ideas to be bogged down by poor planning.
Regardless, I don't believe India will ever have a leader such as Nehru again. As Romila Thapar reminisces, "the premiership of Nehru was about the only time when we could claim that we were moving towards a democracy".
January 3, 2022
When Jawaharlal Nehru died on May 27, 1964 Walter Crocker was the Ambassador of Netherlands to India. He noted in his journal that night – “not much else in my mind for the rest of the day…the beacon light itself has gone out.”
It was a few months later that he began writing this book Nehru – a contemporary’s estimate which eventually turned out to be a strong critical account on Nehru, ironically by one of his staunch admirers. In the introduction of the book Walter writes, “over two periods between 1952 and 1962 it was my job to watch Nehru day by day. Had my job in Delhi been anything else, I would still have watched him out of interest; almost helpless interest. He was interesting because of his political importance but still more interesting because of himself.”
Upon the introduction, one may anticipate it must be a lullaby of praises that is waiting in the 186 pages forth. But the assumption is proved wrong before long. Although there are evident overtones of the author’s respect for Jawaharlal, Walter’s book is penned with detachment when it comes to Nehru, the first prime minister of free India.
He questions Nehru’s ability as an administrator, his capacity to command. His intellectual supremacy is never doubted, nor the poetry in his prose. However, as much as Nehru stood at a much-elevated pedestal as an individual in terms of his perspectives and ideals, his aesthetics and his vision, Walter Crooker reckons that Nehru fell short of an effective ruler, lacking command and dictate at times where they were longed for.
Jawaharlal Nehru took over the realms of India at circumstances where he could easily position himself a Dictator. History states us that almost all dictators were shaped at such situations. However, as much as Nehru refused to be a dictator, the author doubts whether the first Prime minister really had it in him even if he wanted to be one. It takes ruthlessness to get things done for ruling men and there is no other alternative. The book suggests Nehru lacked this character in him. He was strangely reluctant to impose his will; someone who could do his own thinking but more often than not could not pursue his own action. The diplomat author excellently worded this tendency - “His arrogance of mind co-existed with his humility as a commander,” Walter writes. “Often he stood hesitating at the brink of a decision until some firmer or a reckless person edged him into that plunge.”
Crooker penetrates into Nehru’s much acclaimed foreign policy often referring to it as naïve and unfounded. He also writes off Nehru’s stress towards industrialization as wrongly prioritized. Criticizing the ineffectiveness of action in the agriculture sector upon which the villages depended, he opines that the plans drawn by Nehru reflected the urban mind while the majority of India lived rural.
Walter Crocker may have got it spot on when he forecasts in the book, about India as a nation after Nehru. He predicts with objectivity that “the future is likely to show that the roots (Nehru planted) did not strike deep”. He says, “the truth is that Nehru’s personal dominance masked the continuing existence of the deeper forces in the Hindu world hostile to his viewpoint, such as caste and regionalism.”
However, Crocker is one author who has so beautifully penned Nehru, the man. He is clearly in love with Jawaharlal, the person who stunned him with profundity of scholarship, his marriage with literature and his capability to hold a conversation with anyone in the room irrespective of their forte of interest. His sense of democratic behavior is unparalleled and the way his countrymen looked up to him was rare. The altitude of Nehru’s persona is unmatched with any Indian leader of that (and this?) era. He empathizes with the emotional man in Nehru who despite being much interactive with the masses, stood often distant from them, confined to loneliness and grief in his personal sphere.
The concluding chapter named the ‘last journey’, wells up the reader’s heart as much as it must have happened with the author himself. The narration is gripping and moving, so intimate; deepest of all chapters in the book. No account of Nehru’s death must have possessed in itself this touch of a detail.
Reservations aside, Walter Crocker’s book on Nehru, if not the best written work on India’s first prime minister, gives delightful insights into the man and his times with an unbiased perspective. To read the estimate of Jawaharlal by a non-Indian contemporary, who got to watch him close quarters at his prime and decline, it is sure worthy an experience.
It was a few months later that he began writing this book Nehru – a contemporary’s estimate which eventually turned out to be a strong critical account on Nehru, ironically by one of his staunch admirers. In the introduction of the book Walter writes, “over two periods between 1952 and 1962 it was my job to watch Nehru day by day. Had my job in Delhi been anything else, I would still have watched him out of interest; almost helpless interest. He was interesting because of his political importance but still more interesting because of himself.”
Upon the introduction, one may anticipate it must be a lullaby of praises that is waiting in the 186 pages forth. But the assumption is proved wrong before long. Although there are evident overtones of the author’s respect for Jawaharlal, Walter’s book is penned with detachment when it comes to Nehru, the first prime minister of free India.
He questions Nehru’s ability as an administrator, his capacity to command. His intellectual supremacy is never doubted, nor the poetry in his prose. However, as much as Nehru stood at a much-elevated pedestal as an individual in terms of his perspectives and ideals, his aesthetics and his vision, Walter Crooker reckons that Nehru fell short of an effective ruler, lacking command and dictate at times where they were longed for.
Jawaharlal Nehru took over the realms of India at circumstances where he could easily position himself a Dictator. History states us that almost all dictators were shaped at such situations. However, as much as Nehru refused to be a dictator, the author doubts whether the first Prime minister really had it in him even if he wanted to be one. It takes ruthlessness to get things done for ruling men and there is no other alternative. The book suggests Nehru lacked this character in him. He was strangely reluctant to impose his will; someone who could do his own thinking but more often than not could not pursue his own action. The diplomat author excellently worded this tendency - “His arrogance of mind co-existed with his humility as a commander,” Walter writes. “Often he stood hesitating at the brink of a decision until some firmer or a reckless person edged him into that plunge.”
Crooker penetrates into Nehru’s much acclaimed foreign policy often referring to it as naïve and unfounded. He also writes off Nehru’s stress towards industrialization as wrongly prioritized. Criticizing the ineffectiveness of action in the agriculture sector upon which the villages depended, he opines that the plans drawn by Nehru reflected the urban mind while the majority of India lived rural.
Walter Crocker may have got it spot on when he forecasts in the book, about India as a nation after Nehru. He predicts with objectivity that “the future is likely to show that the roots (Nehru planted) did not strike deep”. He says, “the truth is that Nehru’s personal dominance masked the continuing existence of the deeper forces in the Hindu world hostile to his viewpoint, such as caste and regionalism.”
However, Crocker is one author who has so beautifully penned Nehru, the man. He is clearly in love with Jawaharlal, the person who stunned him with profundity of scholarship, his marriage with literature and his capability to hold a conversation with anyone in the room irrespective of their forte of interest. His sense of democratic behavior is unparalleled and the way his countrymen looked up to him was rare. The altitude of Nehru’s persona is unmatched with any Indian leader of that (and this?) era. He empathizes with the emotional man in Nehru who despite being much interactive with the masses, stood often distant from them, confined to loneliness and grief in his personal sphere.
The concluding chapter named the ‘last journey’, wells up the reader’s heart as much as it must have happened with the author himself. The narration is gripping and moving, so intimate; deepest of all chapters in the book. No account of Nehru’s death must have possessed in itself this touch of a detail.
Reservations aside, Walter Crocker’s book on Nehru, if not the best written work on India’s first prime minister, gives delightful insights into the man and his times with an unbiased perspective. To read the estimate of Jawaharlal by a non-Indian contemporary, who got to watch him close quarters at his prime and decline, it is sure worthy an experience.
April 26, 2018
back in the dim and distant past I head read about the partition of India and several of the books I have read also mentioned it, but it has always been from the Muslim POV so I thought it was about time to look at that time and geography from a different world view.
The book is, as far as I can tell, written by someone who knew Nehru while he was PM and weas already familiar with India. There are times when the author assumes we know the background to the big issues of the day but the footnotes and wikipedia fill in most of the gaps. It seemed balanced and well thought out and filled in some of the many whole is my knowledge of semicontempory history.
The book is, as far as I can tell, written by someone who knew Nehru while he was PM and weas already familiar with India. There are times when the author assumes we know the background to the big issues of the day but the footnotes and wikipedia fill in most of the gaps. It seemed balanced and well thought out and filled in some of the many whole is my knowledge of semicontempory history.
August 24, 2020
TL;DR Nehru was a good man and a semi-successful leader. He did his best with the enormous challenges faced by a newly independent India but didn't always succeed. Still, he was a good man.
Nehru tried to make India in his own image - secular and rational. Unfortunately, India is neither, to this day. His forceful efforts and personality kept the Hindu nationalists at bay for nearly three decades after his death but the dream of a secular and rational India seems to have died with him. No other leader since then has had the same commitment to this cause and current dispensation is actively hostile to both ideas. The idea of a rational and secular India that I grew up with was an illusion conjured us by Nehruvian ideals that never had any roots in the reality of my country.
Nehru tried to make India in his own image - secular and rational. Unfortunately, India is neither, to this day. His forceful efforts and personality kept the Hindu nationalists at bay for nearly three decades after his death but the dream of a secular and rational India seems to have died with him. No other leader since then has had the same commitment to this cause and current dispensation is actively hostile to both ideas. The idea of a rational and secular India that I grew up with was an illusion conjured us by Nehruvian ideals that never had any roots in the reality of my country.
December 16, 2018
A slim book but it surely packs a punch. Though some of the observation of the Indians carries a racist & colonial overtones..but the observation of nehru is exact , precise and meaningful. The writer had great foresight about shape of politics of post nehru generation.
This book i purposefully read to clear some of the lies being peddled by ill informed, ignorant hindutva troglodytes...India was really fortunate to have him as our first PM inspite of many errors & blunders he committed...
This book i purposefully read to clear some of the lies being peddled by ill informed, ignorant hindutva troglodytes...India was really fortunate to have him as our first PM inspite of many errors & blunders he committed...
December 18, 2016
Many books have been written about Nehru and India's post-independence history. Very few (if any) have been written from such a personal perspective. Walter Crocker was Australia's High Commissioner to India twice during Nehru's Prime Ministership (1952-55 and again 1958-62). He observed Nehru from close quarters and knew him personally. And it is the personal observations that make this book so good - Nehru's willingness to meet anyone, anywhere; his discomfort with Hinduism and many things that were Indian, his blind spots on certain people he was loyal to (eg Krishna Menon), etc. This book was published in 1966, only a couple of years after Nehru's death so it has the additional advantage of being contemporary. And best of all, it is a very slim volume - well written, accessible and to the point. It is a pity that it is out of print now, but if you can find a copy in a second hand store, it's worth getting.
December 2, 2024
An unstanding book on the life of Nehru written by an independent authour, his contemporary Australian Ambassador.
As Ramchandra Guha says "This book sums up Nehru the man, and Nehru the politician, better than any other work of scholarship I have read".
And as Nirad C Chaudhary puts it "An extraordinary interesting book.... cool, neutral, judicial"
Beauty of book is that it has been written without any indebtneess. Author has written about life of "Nehru" not "The great Nehru Ji" and thus he has never left a chance to criticise him also. This has been written from the angle of a contemporary neutral critic.
A must read book !!!!
As Ramchandra Guha says "This book sums up Nehru the man, and Nehru the politician, better than any other work of scholarship I have read".
And as Nirad C Chaudhary puts it "An extraordinary interesting book.... cool, neutral, judicial"
Beauty of book is that it has been written without any indebtneess. Author has written about life of "Nehru" not "The great Nehru Ji" and thus he has never left a chance to criticise him also. This has been written from the angle of a contemporary neutral critic.
A must read book !!!!
August 20, 2016
Apart from Nehru as a prime minister, Nehru as a man is well depicted in the book. A near perfect combination of Nehru's achievements and his short comings the book does justice to a reader who wishes to know about India's first prime minister and gives a glimpse of how Nehru was integral not only to India but to the world in his time.
Read
July 31, 2011Nice perspective on Nehru from an outsider not blinded by nationalism and importantly, a contemporary lacking the "hindsight" that the Nehru bashers of today have. The section on Goa is particularly thought provoking...
July 30, 2012
A refreshing read about Nehru and more or less an unbiased review rather than adoration review...Crooker gives out rare insights and critical one
December 1, 2014
อธิบายได้ดี ในแง่เนห์รู ฐานะผู้นำ นักการเมือง
และคนธรรมดา Crocker เห็นนักการทูตที่สามารถและมองได้อย่างแหลมคม
และคนธรรมดา Crocker เห็นนักการทูตที่สามารถและมองได้อย่างแหลมคม
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews