A Comparison of Gandhi’s Autobiography with
Nehru’s
Gandhiji wrote his autobiography at a time when the tradition of
writing autobiographies had just made a beginning.
He declared in the
Preface to his autobiography that the hint for writing was not his own, but
was pressed upon him by some of his colleagues. When he was in prison,
which he calls
‘Yervada Mandir’, he got a lot of free time, and he
thought upon the request of his colleagues and started writing.
As
Gandhiji is called the Mahatma, his autobiography is taken as a sort of a
moral text.
Nehru’s autobiography presents a remarkable contrast. Nehru himself
had not given the title; it was proposed by his publisher.
What is
important in his An Autobiography is that throughout the text he has not
used the word ‘autobiography’.
He calls it an ‘autobiographical
narrative’, and he has put the expression in inverted commas, as if he was
not so happy about that. Like Gandhiji, who wrote his autobiography in
prison, Nehru in the month of June 1934 began his ‘autobiographical
narrative’ in Dehradun Gaol. Nehru said that most of the writing took
place under peculiar circumstances, when he was suffering from
depression and emotional strain.
Nehru’s autobiography pertains to his involvement in Indian political
life. It is a historical narrative. An Autobiography concentrates on the
life history of the author no doubt, but Nehru’s work is contemporary
history seen from his eyes. Truly speaking, his An Autobiography is
neither a personal document, nor history in the true sense of the term. It
is a mixture of both, a sort of personal account of the past as he himself
called it. What is worth noting is, contemporary India was Nehru’s main
focus, that is why it came nearer to being a depiction of history than
personal details. He did not expect his autobiography to be judged as a
221
historical work, and if done so it might be found defective. To avoid that
he wrote in the Preface: “The fact this resembles superficially such a
survey is to mislead the reader and lead him to attach a wider importance
to it than it deserves.”1 It is true that it has got both historical importance
and literary merit. The reader may attach much importance to the
historical narrative than it really deserves. Nehru’s contribution to the
shaping of modem Indian consciousness is as significant as his
contribution to the making of modem India.
According to B.R.Nanda, Jawaharlal Nehru spent a total of 1170 days
in jail, between December 1931 and September 1935. It was towards the
close of 1935 that he wrote his autobiography. The preface refers to the
mood of self questioning, and particularly the distressed period which his
autobiography covers. He makes it clear in the Preface why he wrote his
autobiography: “The primary object in writing these pages was to occupy
myself with a definite task, so necessary in the long solitude of gaol life,
as well as to review past events in India....... ”2 The distress was the
anxiety about his wife, who was sick, and struggling between life and
death in India and a Swiss Sanatoria, but also from the declining fortunes
of the struggle against the British Raj.
He has recorded in his An
Autobiography the story of his life, and the course of the freedom
movement to which he had dedicated himself entirely.
Gandhiji’s
autobiography was published serially in Navjivan, a Gujarati weekly, in
169 installments, whereas Nehru wrote his autobiography over a
continuous spell of 9 months, from June 1934 to February 1935. The
autobiography was published in 1936, and was dedicated to his wife
‘Kamala’. By the time Nehru’s autobiography appeared, Gandhiji’s The
Story of My Experiments with Truth
had come to be regarded as a
classic,
comparison
and
naturally
it
invited
with
Gandhiji’s
222
autobiography. Nehru’s autobiography was published in England. As we
know, autobiography is a personal record; from both the autobiographies,
we get the personal views and reactions of the authors.
Nehru’s autobiography consists of the major political literature of the
then period. His autobiography gives us a description of the political
events, in him we find both an autobiographer and a memoirist. He is a
sort of an observer of the events. As Basavaraj Naikar has pointed out:
“One hesitates to call it an autobiography. If at all one wants to designate
it so, it can be easily reduced to half of its size”.3 Strictly speaking it is a
sort of historical document.
That is why, the American edition of
Nehru’s autobiography is known by the name, ‘Towards Freedom.’ It is
not quite clear why he decided to publish his autobiography abroad,
which was initially entitled ‘In and Out of Prison.’ His family history
covers just five pages, and his childhood and his years at Harrow and
Cambridge some ten pages. The remaining pages, nearly six hundred,
contain the political history of India seen through his eyes. A couple of
chapters are devoted to his father, and to his wife’s death. Gandhiji’s
autobiography contains the vivid descriptions of his childhood to youth
until the time he went to England.
The historical narrative of Nehru is not impersonal. He is at the center
and introduces the readers to the important events and personalities of the
day. In Gandhiji’s autobiography we find only celebrated personalities
like Gokhale. Nehru’s autobiography gives us a glimpse of personalities
like Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, Chandrashekhar Azad,
Sarojini Naidu, Lala Lajpat Rai, Khan Abdul Gafar Khan (Frontier
Gandhi), Miraben (Medeleine Slade) and a host of others. Nehru is
comparable to Gandhi in this, as in many other aspects. Both contributed
223
to the creation of the nation as well as to its consciousness. Both of them
used literature, which is a great vehicle and symbol. In respect of the
political goal both had similarities; only in the literary field we find
differences. Gandhiji was a source of poetry, whereas Nehru created
poetry, or more precisely it may be stated that he found poetry in India
and its history.
Nehru’s autobiography can be called a prose poem, which contains the
discovery of his self in relation to India. That is the reason why he puts a
greater emphasis on his loneliness. The parallel between his personal
history, and the history of India is indicated in An Autobiography. “As
compared with My Experiments with Truth by M.K.Gandhi, Nehru’s An
Autobiography appears to lack sincerity.”4 Gandhiji is very sincere in
depicting each and every situation. Nehru may be understood only by
those who knew him very closely. Nehru had a romantic tendency. His
An Autobiography is his first major work which evolves into a national
epic.
Entering inside the cage of his own soul, he converts it to the
national consciouness and finally an epical breadth is achieved by him.
While lacking the spiritual tinge of Gandhiji’s, it is more artistic. Nehru
is a poet who works in prose. If poetry means a stirring of the soul, a
spurring of imagination, touching of the chords of the heart, and a
sensuous apprehension of experiences, Nehru is a poet par excellence.
Like Gandhiji’s autobiography, Nehru’s autobiography is also widely
read, and is the most important of all his writings. Mahadev Desai says :
“the study of these pages has a tonic and educative and ennobling quality
which no student of our history can afford to miss.”5 As Mahadev Desai
says Nehru’s work represents the national history of India. By going
through his autobiography, we come to know about his personality and
224
also how he shaped the destiny of his own people. As Gandhijis heart
bled for the poor whom he calls Daridranarayana, Nehru, though brought
up in an aristocratic family, had a Buddha like heart, which could respond
to the poor and the suffering. As he himself has declared, he was a queer
mixture of East and West, thoroughly modem in his outlook and views,
but his spirit was for humanity.
Nehru has not mentioned in his autobiography about his reading of
religious texts, whereas Gandhiji writes that from his childhood days he
studied Hindu Religion. Reading of the Ramayana was done regularly in
his house. Says he : “What, however, left a deep impression on me was
the reading of the Ramayana before my father.”6 The reading of the
religious texts had a great impression on him, which he continued till a
later stage in his life. He read the Gita and the Bible when he was a
student in England.
We call Gandhiji a saint as he attached more
importance to religion and spirituality; he was a votary of truth. To him
Truth was God. He spoke the language of the common man like a saint.
Nehru was interested in books on modem science, philosophy and issues
of contemporary interest. As he himself has said his monotonous jail life
was relieved because of a rigorous and systematic course of reading.
Of course, the basic conflict was that Nehru was a social engineer,
whereas Gandhi was a spiritual healer. Nehru was keenly sensitive to the
appalling condition of Indians as Gandhi was.
But he did not quite
understand Gandhiji’s language precisely, because Gandhiji spoke the
language of the millions. As B.R.Nanda has rightly pointed out, Nehru’s
An Autobiography reflects his doubts and self-questioning and mental
conflict.
225
A comparison of Gandhi’s autobiography with Nehru’s is attempted
with regard to the technique and depiction of personal history, besides the
then contemporary situations.
Both the autobiographies are equally
bulky; they differ only in the impression they make on the readers.
Nehru’s autobiography presents national history, that is, the history of
Indian political life, whereas Gandhiji’s deals with his experiments with
life. It is rather a spiritual analysis. Nehru depicts his entry into Indian
politics, his involvement in the Congress and Gandhiji’s movements and
his opposition of the British Raj.
His autobiography is thick with
political atmosphere of the day. Gandhiji’s autobiography is, “heavily
concerned with the Mahatma’s private activities”.7 Gandhiji’s sins and
lapses acquire a unique dimension.
What is important in him is a
complete absence of vanity. He has dissected his life mercilessly.
When we go through Nehru’s An Autobiography we find a generation
gap. Both Gandhiji and Nehru were educated in England.
Nehru’s
education in England left a permanent mark of English liberalism on
him. He carries no burden of sin. He has devoted much time to the study
of political problems and situations, never bothering to relate them to
personal drives. Gandhiji’s father stood for love and forgiveness, while
Nehru’s father Motilal Nehru was an embodiment of courage and
wisdom.
Nehru also joined ‘The Inner Temple’ where Gandhiji had studied law
about some twenty years before: and like Gandhiji, Nehru tried to ape the
English Gentleman: “I came across some old Harrow friends and I
developed expensive habits in their company.”8 Like his father he tried to
lead an expensive life and wanted to be known by the name ‘man about
the town’. But his stay in England did not develop a political outlook in
226
him. Gandhiji gave up the idea of playing the English Gentleman, when
he realized that he could learn violin and elocution in India, as a student
he ought to go on with his studies. Nehru’s visit to Ireland in 1910
brought him under the spell of the Irish patriotic movement, and with an
attentive mind and open eyes he carefully listened to the prominent
Indian politicians of the day, who visited England.
After his return from England Nehru joined the Allahabad High Court
as a lawyer.
Nehru saw Gandhiji for the first time in the annual
conference of the Indian National Congress, which was held at Lucknow
in 1916. Nehru was very much attracted towards Gandhiji because of his
success in Champaran and Civil Disobedience against the Rowlatt Bill.
Afterwards Nehru threw himself into it heart and soul and joined the nonco-operation movement launched by Gandhiji.
Nehru writes of
Gandhiji’s growing acquaintance with the masses and his popularity
among them.
The patterns of New India as conceived by Gandhiji and Nehru were
different. Gandhiji was a religious man, for whom the search for Truth
necessarily led to the field of action. Nehru was a man of action, who in
his quest for the right norms of conduct had come to Gandhiji, caught a
glimpse of at least the moral facet of Truth as the latter saw it. They
agreed on many things and differed on a few. But in political life, they
were very near to each other. They could and did work in the closest and
most intimate co-operation.
The distinction between Gandhiji and Nehru is worth noting. Nehru
is psychologically honest, but it is the pride that would not permit him to
be dubbed a coward. In Gandhiji, it is the note of spiritual surrender that
would make him face any severe trial of flesh, notes C.R.P.Sinha. When
227
not yet 40, Gandhiji had developed a social philosophy of his own, based
on his faith in non-violence, distrust of industrialism and the modem
state. The India of Gandhiji’s dreams was a federation of small village
republics.
It was to be, in Gandhiji’s words, a Ramarajya.
Nehru
believed in curbing the profit motive, in promoting public ownership of
key industries and in using the machinery of the state to regulate
economic activity. He was more influenced by the Soviet model of
planning, yet veered towards a mixed econmy. Gandhiji’s approach was
different.
As discussed above, Gandhiji represents the religious mind and Nehru
the secular mind of India. So the view of life that each of them developed
possessed an individuality of its own and cannot be labeled as old or new,
Eastern or Western.
Abid Hussain states : “Gandhiji’s philosophy is
composed largely of the religious ideas of the Indian mind which he has
re-discovered through personal, spiritual experience and re-arranged in
the scale of values.”9 His conception of freedom and dignity of human
individuals is essentially religious. But we must remember that above all
Gandhiji was a religious man. He was an apostle of Satya and Ahimsa.
He found for himself, and showed to others, the way of love that led to
Truth. All his efforts for reform, progress, revolution were governed by
the law of love, the code of non-violence. So, he often appeared to be old
fashioned and conservative.
Nehru’s view of life did not, as it is seen from the autobiography, go
in a straight line like Gandhiji’s philosophy, but was full of turns and
twists till he reached the point where it had acquired a measure of
firmness and stability. It had to pass through the stages of sentimental
religiousness of the East and the system of philosophy of the West. So,
228
when we call him the representative of the secular mind of India, we
should be clear in our minds that it is true only in a limited sense. No
doubt, the philosophy of humanism that inspired him is taken from
secular Indian thought.
Nehru’s attitude towards Truth is not the
traditional agnostic or scepticle attitude but the scientific one. He always
thought that the first stage of the arduous journey would be reached with
the help of science, and the second with that of philosophy. Nehru had
stooped to Gandhiji, but he had stooped to conquer. Nehru had been
publicly hailed by Gandhiji as his guide on International affairs.
Primarily Nehru was anti-fascist and Gandhiji was anti-war. Nehru felt
certain that Gandhiji was leading the country in the right direction.
The center of Gandhian thought is individual freedom. Probably the
seed of this idea had germinated in Gandhiji’s mind as a result of the
study of liberal democracy in theory and practice during his stay in
England. But the later development of this idea was mainly due to his
religious belief that complete political freedom was a necessary condition
for the spiritual progress and ultimate solution of the individual soul. The
fundamental idea, which dominated Nehru’s mind from the beginning,
was economic freedom and economic equality - the essence of socialism.
When we read both the autobiographies we come to know that
Gandhiji and Nehru had different approaches towards sex. According to
Nehru, Gandhiji always thought in terms of personal salvation and sin,
most of the people, that the leaders in particular, would have society’s
welfare as uppermost in their minds. Nehru found it difficult to grasp the
idea of sin, and because of this he could not appreciate Gandhiji’s
outlook. Nehru writes : “For him any union is a crime when the desire
for progency is absent.”10 Gandhiji does not approve the acts of any
229
person who indulges in animal passion. It is true that man should curb
animal passion in him. Nehru finds this attitude of Gandhiji unnatural
and shocking.
According to him, the Roman Catholics have also
vigorously opposed birth control, but they did not carry their argument to
the extreme limit as Gandhiji did.
According to Gandhiji, man should indulge in sex for the continuation
of his family and race. He does not recognize the validity or necessity of
the sexual act any time except for the sake of children.
Moreover,
Gandhiji, as Nehru has pointed out, refuses to recognize any sexual
attraction between man and woman.
As far as the control of animal
passion is concerned, Gandhiji advocated Brahmacharya. He says : “Life
without Brahmacharya appears to me insipid and animal-like.”" Gandhiji
advocated Brahmacharya as bodily self-restraint.
He gave up milk,
which, according to him, stimulated animal passion.
Fasting and
restriction of diet became a very important part in his life. He wanted to
devote his maximum time to the Satyagraha struggle. His convictions
took deep root and thus Brahmacharya, which he had been trying to
observe since 1900, was sealed with a vow in the middle of 1906.
Nehru does not agree with Gandhiji, and he says that Gandhiji was
completely wrong in the matter of sex. As Nehru has rightly pointed out,
sexual restraint is desirable. Gandhiji thought that birth control methods
necessarily mean inordinate indulgence in the sex act, and he further
argued that if the sexual affinity between man and woman is admitted,
every man will run after every woman, and vice-versa. But Nehru admits
that he was a normal individual, and sex had played its part in his life. In
his opinion control of the passion is possible only to an ascetic.
230
As Gandhiji and Nehru differed in the matter of sex from each other,
so also they held different views about Khadi and Machinery. In 1908,
Gandhiji described Charkha or the spinning wheel as the Panacea for the
growing pauperism of India in Hind Swaraj.
The main object in
introducing Khadi was to make people clothe themselves entirely in cloth
manufactured by their own hands. Gandhiji, as Nehru clearly writes in
the autobiography, wanted India to become not only a self-sufficient
nation, but also every village to become almost a self-sufficient village.
Nehru held a different view. The Khadi movement, hand-spinning and
hand-weaving were Gandhiji’s favourites and they were an intensification
of individualism in production, and it was a sort of throw back to the pre­
industrial age. But as a solution to the problem it could not be taken
seriously because it would produce a mentality which might become a
hindrance for the growth of the country in the right direction.
“Economically Khadi has been of some little help to those wholly and
partially unemployed, it has raised their self-respect and given them some
feeling of confidence.”12 Both Gandhiji and Nehru were of the opinion
that village should become self-sufficient. Khadi was tried with some
success to bridge the gap between the city and the village. It also brought
the middle class and peasants closer. Besides, the use of Khadi dress by
the middle class resulted in the growth of simplicity, and a feeling of
unity with the masses. Khadi undoubtedly helped the Congress to reach
the masses. It became the uniform of the national freedom fighters.
Nehru felt that Gandhiji’s attempt to revive the village industries was
an extension of his Khadi programme. He strongly argues that, as it was
a revolt against machinery and industrialism, it would not succeed, and he
felt that it was quite conceivable to have cottage industries worked by
electricity. Nehru was a dreamer. As we know today, no country is
231
really independent or capable of resisting aggression, unless it is
industrially developed, and in the modem technologically advanced
world, we have to have the machine building industry itself. But the
agreeable fact is, as the big industries spread the competition from the
small-scale industries would be less.
One carried on his Experiments with Truth first on the moral and
religious plane, and applied the results thus obtained to social life. The
other experimented, in the light of the moral truth that was in him,
directly on the political and social plane.
With regard to the application of non-violence both Gandhiji and
Nehru held the same views. Gandhiji wanted India to be a secular state as
Nehru did. Gandhiji’s ultimate ideal was to establish a society based on
pure Ahimsa, but it is opined that his practical commonsense and wide
experience of human nature had convinced him that man was not ready
for such a society, Nehru’s liberal state was one envisaged by Gandhiji,
which governs the least or, in other words, acts upon the principles of
Ahimsa, as far as possible in the present imperfect society. Ahimsa is
reflected in the whole conduct of Nehru. It looks as if his attitude to non­
violence had become what it was in 1920 - 1921.
When Gandhiji’s
influence had made him deeply religious, he was not fully conscious of it.
Though he was never interested in the metaphysical aspects of non­
violence, yet its moral aspect was also religious in a wider sense of the
word had a great attraction for him. Nehru says : “It attracted me more
and more and the belief grew upon me that, situated as we were in India,
and with our background and traditions, it was the right policy for us.”13
It is correct that the non-violence policy of Gandhiji was the best and the
right policy, which Nehru supported whole-heartedly.
232
In 1922, when the Civil Disobedienee Movement which shook the
British Raj, was suspended by Gandhiji, because of violence in Chauri
Chaura, Nehru, like others received a terrible shock, and his basic
difference with Gandhiji over non-violence became more pronounced.
But this change in the ideas of Nehru did not affect his action to any
considerable extent. In spite of all the trials and temptations offered by
the terrorist movements in India, he abstained from violence in word and
deed and probably also in thought. Nehru’s non-violence means no more
than that; he is guided by the true spirit of democracy in his thoughts and
actions. It is from the Mahatma that he imbibed an ethical outlook, a
concern for the ‘naked hungry masses’ of India, and faith in peaceful and
patient methods. The working partnership between Nehru and Gandhiji
lasted till the end. The question before us is not Truth verses untruth, and
non-violence verses violence. One assumes that true co-operation and
peaceful methods must be aimed at, and a society which encourages these
must be our objective.
The language employed by Gandhiji and Nehru is also noteworthy.
The varieties of language used by the two are very different. Nehru’s
prose is elaborate in the sense that it is worked out with care and in detail.
The sensational success of his autobiography established his reputation as
a writer, because of its most impressive and griping language. The book
ran through ten printings in 1936. It turned out to be the most influential
of Nehru’s books.
“It was translated into thirtyone languages.”14 As
Gandhiji’s autobiography was popular, so also was Nehru’s, because it
thrilled the young intellectuals in India. His expression is transparent to
his thought and is evidence of an integrated personality. He responds
with his whole being to whatever comes within the range of his
233
experience. Mountains attract him; sunsets haunt his memory. Humayun
Kabir said : “The sensitive, winged and vital words in which he has
recorded his impressions proclaim an artist of rare quality.”15 Nehru’s
language has got a deep aesthetic sensibility and broad interest in the
affairs of man. From his autobiography Nehru reached the pinnacle of
his fame as a great writer.
Gandhiji’s language is that of the common man. Biblical simplicity is
to be found in his language. He represents the two poles of India’s
psyche, the aesthetic and the ascetic. Gandhiji did not write his
autobiography in English as Nehru did. He wrote in his native language
‘Gujarati’; later it was translated into English by Mahadev Desai. The
difference between Gandhiji and Nehru is in the matter of emphasis only.
Gandhiji uses condensed expressions.
artificiality.
His language is devoid of
His language has a prophetic tone, because he had to
exercise moral influence on his co-workers. His sentences are arranged
with compactness and strength. He writes in the autobiography : “When
two nations are fighting, the duty of the votary of Ahimsa is to stop the
war.”16 Gandhiji could make clear his thoughts with the minimum
possible words. His language is noted for its precision, clarity, frankness,
sincerity, prophetic and vigour in Indo-Anglian prose.
A notable feature of the autobiographies of both Nehru and Gandhiji is
the use of quotations. Both have used quotations that were selected from
different fields. In order to put stress on his thoughts like Truth, non­
violence, morality etc., Gandhiji quotes from the Gita, Surdas and other
religious and spiritual writers. In the introduction to his autobiography he
234
quotes the following lines of Surdas :
“Where there is a wretch
So wicked and loathsome as I?
I have forsaken my maker,
So faithless I have been.”17
He had complete faith in God and he condemns himself for being
faithless towards his maker, that is God. Gandhiji was, to a great extent,
influenced by the Indian classics, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and
the Gita. The Bible had also a great influence on him. As a result, his
style was characterized by balancing and skilful marshalling of clauses,
learned quotations and classical allusions and dignified oration.
Nehru’s quotations are specially chosen from poetry, and they hold the
mirror to his wide reading of English literature. This is the reason why
some of his admirers lamented that he should have given to politics what
was meant for literature. This is a complete misreading of the man and
his motives. What is important is without his passionate commitment to
politics, it is doubtful if he would have become an author. It is true that
he had great gifts; a penetrating mind, a fertile imagination. Nevertheless
the fact remains that he had hardly written anything before his plunge
into politics. Once he had cast his lot with Gandhiji, he felt an irresistible
urge to act.
No reader of Nehru can rise from the reading of him without being
convinced that he can be pleased in all the ways. He had a greater scope,
opportunity and desire to weave an artistic pattern to give the world a
product
of aesthetic
emotion
and planned
rationality.
Nehru’s
autobiography begins with a quotation from Abraham Cowley.
All
235
quotations which he uses are mainly drawn from literature, a majority of
them from poetry. Quotations are used either in the beginning, middle or
at the
end of the chapter.
Referring to the tragedy of the Bihar
earthquake, which he viewed as the workings of providence, he quotes
from William Blake. :
“When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears,
Dare he laugh his work to see?
Dare he who made the lamb make thee? ”18 By using these lines
he wanted to show how natural calamities worked havoc. The quotations
used by Nehru demonstrated his mastery over the language. Gandhiji
learnt English by dint of sheer effort. Gandhiji was a self - made man.
Nehru has quoted from Shakespeare, Byron, Alexander Pope, Mathew
Arnold, Thomas Moore, Hopkins, William Blake, Robert Browning,
Swinburne, Walter de-la-Mare, Richard Garnet and from the American
poetE. Markham.
According to Nehru, afraid of the change and movements, the leaders
were frightened at the tempest that was brewing around them; they could
not go forward, they became the Hamlets of Indian politics. Quoting from
Shakespeare he wrote: “The time is out of joint / O cursed spite / That
ever was I bom to set it right.”19 It is important to note that Nehru joined
hands with Gandhiji and set everything right.
Gandhiji,besides using quotations, also employed similes, metaphors
and other figures of speech to express his thoughts more vigorously,
forcefully and emphatically. The example of the artistic and poetic
similes are, “Sir Pherozeshah had seemed to me like the Himalaya, the
Lokamanya like the Ocean. But Gokhale was the Ganges.”20 and Polak
236
who joined the Phoenix Settlement and took over charge from Gandhiji
writes about him : “He took to it like a duck takes to water.”21 Gandhiji
had a great gift for comparison. His quotations had a religious and moral
force appealing to the conscience of man. The practical application of
Gandhian thought to individual, social, national and international ills will
definitely cure the suffering humanity and will usher into the world an era
of peace.
Gandhian thought is relevant today because it contains
universal values.
He quotes from Gujarati poetry, the Gita, ancient
hymns, from Sanskrit texts, from Muktananda and Nishkulananda. As in
Nehru the quotations are found either in the beginning, middle or end of
the chapters. Gandhiji’s quotations have a touch of the native soil.
Nehru’s quotations have the vigour of his mind, the earnestness and
integrity of his character that shine through his work and give his
autobiography an extraordinary power and appeal.
For, it cannot be
claimed that he possesses remarkable originality of outlook.
For
originality of outlook we go rather to Gandhiji. But Jawaharlal has really
won a world-wide recognition by means of his pen.
The
analysis
of
characters,
scenes
and
situations
autobiographies of both are gripping and moving.
in
the
Both possessed
exceptional powers of analysis. Nehru’s scenes and situations have got a
romantic flavour, whereas Gandhiji’s are plain and simple. Nehru could
catch a character or personality or, describe a scene or summarize a mass
of information in a clear concise style, which is nevertheless vivid or
arresting for being quiet in tone and subdued in its phrasing. Throughout
the autobiography we find wonderfully live pictures of Nehru’s father.
There are many incidents which catch the attention of the readers, his
father motoring all night in order to reach his lathi battered son at
237
Lucknow
;
enumerating his modest food requirements to the
superintendent of Yeravda prison ; banging the table and refusing to be an
invalid any longer - towards the end refusing to tone down civil
disobedience and sitting up in bed, declaring that he would not
compromise or give up the struggle even if he was the sole person left to
carry it on ; sitting finally, massive and expressionless, like an old lion
mortally wounded but still very leonine and kingly, and greeting his
comrades who came to say farewell.
These snapshots linger in the
memory. It is these flashes, revealing as they do the man, “in his habit as
he lived that make the most vivid impression.”22
Gandhiji’s autobiography also contains such moving passages. The
chapter where he went to give a letter of confession to his father is
profoundly touching. His playing the ‘English Gentleman’ or ‘Kasturba’s
Courage’ are equally noteworthy from the analytical point of view.
Gandhiji was an Indian to the core. Nehru was essentially a cosmopolik.
His humanity was not confined to his mother or his family members; it
extended even to his political adversaries. He felt sorry for the Prince of
Wales against whose visit there was a countrywide demonstration. His
concern for animals is also noteworthy.
He has dedicated a whole
chapter for the description of animals and insects and his co-existence
with them in his autobiography. But he excells in depicting nature’s
changing moods and appearances. The analysis of both Gandhiji and
Nehru is original and not bookish. Both possessed sympathy for the
down trodden and the oppressed.
Compared to Nehru’s autobiography, Gandhiji’s autobiography has
wholeness and integrity. But what is more important is that Gandhiji
knew that the story of his experiments did not coincide with the
238
chronology of his life. The narration of his life was brisk and unilinear,
whereas that of his experiments was circular. Nehru began his
autobiography with the description of his life but it soon turned into a
commentary on political events, contemporary India and life in general.
Gandhiji never ceased to be the centre and circumference of his story
until the end. By and large, he never lost sight of the fact that he was
writing about himself and his experiments. His gaze remained fixed on
his inner world and nothing was allowed to disturb his intense
introspection. Unlike Nehru he did not outline his views on larger issues
of the day. Nehru’s autobiography is not only a personal narrative, but a
political testament, an indictment of imperialism, and an outline of the
new order he envisaged for India and the world.
Nehru’s family came under the Mahatma’s spell, and learnt to seek
solace and support from the saint of Sabarmati.
This was an emotional
bond but not without its influence upon politics. To the question why two
men with such diverse backgrounds and temperaments remained together,
the simple answer is that they needed each other. Like Gandhiji, Nehru
had a deep concern for the small peasant, the landless labourer and the
industrial worker. It must, however, be acknowledged that Nehru applied
Gandhiji’s principles as far as he could to the needs of a modem state.
Both the autobiographies of Gandhiji and Nehru give us a comprehensive
picture of the political life of the country.
Their personal life is so
intimately associated with the life of the nation that it is impossible to
distinguish them. Both the autobiographies, as stories of India’s national
struggle, are unsurpassed; as sympathetic studies into the character of the
men, who shaped India’s destiny, they have no equal. The story of their
life is fused into the story of the nation and its struggle for freedom.
239
Both Gandhiji and Nehru proclaim themselves as citizens of the world.
Mahatma Gandhi had bestridden the world of Indian politics like a
colossus that even a giant like Nehru was overshadowed by him.
Although they had intellectual differences, their hearts were at one. The
bond that united them was political. They both lived for the cause of
India’s freedom. The Indian political scenario Nehru described in his
autobiography was dominated by Gandhiji. He mentions him more than
any other leader.
Gandhiji fascinated him. Since Nehru sought to
understand himself in the context of political events, his autobiography
has a very different character from Gandhiji’s. He sees India against the
background of world events, and writes about them at great length. Both
the autobiographies present to us serious attempts at self-understanding.
240
REFERENCES :
1. Jawaharlal Nehru. An Autobiography. (New Delhi, Penguin Books
India pvt. Ltd., 2004), P.XIV.
2. Ibid. P.XIV.
3. Basavaraj Naikar. A Study of Nehru’s Autobiography.
In his
Critical response to Indian English Literature.(Rohtak, Shanti
Prakashan, 2003), P.245.
4. Ibid. P.248.
5. Quoted by C.D.Narasimhaiah. Jawaharlal Nehru : The Statesman
as Writer. (Delhi, Perfect Internationals, 2001), P.74.
6. M.K.Gandhi. The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Selected
Works. Vol.I. (Ahmedabad, Navjivan Publishing house, 1993-94),
P.46.
7. R.C.P.Sinha. The Indian Autobiographies in English. (New Delhi,
S.Chand & Co, Ltd, 1978), P.138.
8. Jawaharlal Nehru. An Autobiography. (New Delhi, Penguin Books
India pvt. Ltd., 2004), P.27.
9. Abid Hussian. The Way of Gandhi and Nehru. (Bombay, Asia
Publishing House, 1961), P.148.
10. Jawaharlal Nehru. An Autobiography. (New Delhi, Penguin Books
India pvt. Ltd., 2004), P.529.
11. M.K.Gandhi. The Story of My Experiments with Truth.
Selected Works. Vol.II. (Ahmedabad, Navjivan Publishing house,
1993-94), P.472.
12. Jawaharlal Nehru. An Autobiography. (New Delhi, Penguin Books
India pvt. Ltd., 2004), P.541.
13. Ibid. PP. 79-80.
241
14. B.R.Nanda. Gokhale, Gandhi and the Nehrus. (London, George
Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1974), P.126.
15. Humayun Kabir.
Nehru : The Man and the Writer. From
Jawaharlal Nehru - A critical tribute. A.B. Shah (ed). (Bombay,
Manaktala and Sons Pvt. Ltd., 1965), P.57.
16. M.K.Gandhi. The Story ofMy Experiments with Truth.
Selected Works. Vol.II. (Ahmedabad, Navjivan Publishing house,
1993-94), P.522.
17. M.K.Gandhi. The Story of My Experiments with Truth.
Selected Works. Vol.I. (Ahmedabad, Navjivan Publishing house,
1993-94), P.XXiii.
18. Jawaharlal Nehru. An Autobiography. (New Delhi, Penguin Books
India pvt. Ltd., 2004), P.508.
19. Ibid. P.410.
20. M.K.Gandhi. The Story ofMy Experiments with Truth.
Selected Works. Vol.I. (Ahmedabad, Navjivan Publishing house,
1993-94), P.264.
21. M.K.Gandhi. The Story ofMy Experiments with Truth.
Selected Works. Vol.II. (Ahmedabad, Navjivan Publishing house,
1993-94), P.455.
22. P.E.Dustoor. Nehru - The writer. Jawaharlal Nehru Souvenir.
Satish Chander (ed). (Delhi, Pub. by S.Chander, for J.L.N.
Souvenir Committee, 1966), P.84.