January,
1959
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY ANNUAL
Nehru's Letters
D P Mukerji
This bunch of old Inters is a political testament of India
thirties and a half of the forties.
in the last twenty five years, the twenties,
Jawaharlal writes in the preface, "Reading them again, they revive old controversies and almost forgotten memories come back to
mind'
Forgotten they will not he. because India is becoming conscious of her
history.
The volume is laden with history.
come f r o m J a w a h a r l a l ' s pen. V e r y
too
was
straight
L E T T E R S are of as m a n y types J a w a h a r l a l
direct to G a n d h i j i .
Gan- few of t h e m are personal; the rest
as of those w h o w r i t e t h e m , a n d
A m o n g the polisays
again,
'You
are too are political.
and those p r i n t e d correspond to the d h i j i
t
i
c
a
l
ones,
t
w
o
or
three of t h e m
g
o
i
n
g
too
fast
'
I
see
quite
interests i n v o l v e d ; l i t e r a r y , philosophical, p o l i t i c a l , personal, a n d so on. clearly, t h a t y o u m u s t c a r r y on open are the best of the bunch, t w o to
and one to Azad.
But l e t t e r - w r i t i n g is a self-centred w a r f a r e against me a n d my v i e w s / L o r d L o t h i a n ,
T
w
o
of
t
h
e
m
to
Jinnah
betray a
Of
course,
J
a
w
a
h
a
r
l
a
l
yielded,
and
act a n d is often narcissistic. This
weakness.
T
w
o
letters
to
Subhas
at
every
step.
(There
was
a.
p i t f a l l P a n d i t N e h r u has, however,
avoided. By a n d large, he has not b r i l l i a n t letter o f V i r e n d r a Chatto- show the clash of i r o n , a n d a few
the w i l l to
w r i t t e n m u c h about himself. U s u a l l y padhyaya, B e r l i n , December 4, 1929. of them to G a n d h i j i
conflict
but
unwillingness
to w o u n d .
'On
the
one
h
a
n
d
you
support
the
it is his correspondents w h o do so,
L
o
t
h
i
a
n
was
an
accomplished
debam
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
the
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
Committee
a n d when he h i m s e l f does, he w r i t e s
In their acceptance of D o m i n i o n tor. but J a w a h a r l a l raised h i m to a
purely about p o l i t i c a l issues.
higher level. The best is no doubt
Status a n d on the other hand you
P o l i t i c a l objectivity, however, could
It a t t a i n e d
support the m a j o r i t y of the w o r k e r s the one to M a u l a n a .
not be a cold-blooded affair, The letthe h i g h w a t e r m a r k o f p o l i t i c a l
in t h e i r d e m a n d for independence
ters t o J i n n a h , L o r d L o t h i a n , and
Some step has to be taken to re- excellence. V e r y few better p o l i t i A z a d breathe a cold passion. Jawacal pronouncements on the intermove this discrepancy. I n t e r n a t i o n h a r l a l could t u r n his w r a t h f r o m
a l l y your position w i l l be
quite n a t i o n a l scene have been w r i t t e n .
J i n n a h , answer L o t h i a n , w r i t e t o
untenable
unless you do w h a t The M a u l a n a a d m i t s i t , a n d JawaA z a d about world-politics, s h o w i n g a
great leaders have often done, h a r l a l accepts the compliment.
deep e m o t i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t in the
T h i s volume is thus a p o l i t i c a l
namely, p u b l i c l y a d m i t a m i s t a k e
problems at stake.
B u t his feela n d t a k e the r i g h t line'. J a w a h a r l a l ' s testament o f I n d i a i n the last t w e n t y
ings were controlled, very c o n t r o l l e d
answer is not there. In practice, five years, the twenties, t h i r t i e s a n d
indeed. J a w a h a r l a l
and
Subhas
however, he
did not admit
his a h a l f of the forties. J a w a h a r l a l
were friends; Subhas w r o t e a s t r o n g
mistake, a l t h o u g h r e g r e t t i n g i t . writes in the preface. 'Reading t h e m
note; J a w a h a r l a l replied, c a l m l y .
There is the difference
between again, they revive old controversies
They became u n f r i e n d l y , but they
memories
G a n d h i j i and J a w a h a r l a l . G a n d h i - and almost f o r g o t t e n
remained friends. T h i s d i g n i t y was
Forgotten
j i i n i t i a t e d and J a w a h a r l a l follow- come back to m i n d ' .
responsible for the coldness o f h i '
ed, not blindly, but very intelligent- they w i l l not he, because I n d i a is
passion. A l l the letters of Jawabecoming conscious of her h i s t o r y .
l y . Therein lay Gandhiji's w i s d o m
h a r l a l are dignified despite affection
J a w a h a r l a l belongs to
the clay, The bunch of old l e t t e r s ' is laden
or dislike.
He
was
politically
history.
Subhas,
Lothian,
but a different clay
at
that. w i t h
objective, very h u m a n , and above
G a n d h i j i was the potter. Jawahar- Jinnah, M a u l a n a , S a r o j i n i , a n d a
all dignified.
l a l had m u c h too m u c h o f hu- host of others are not ' a l m o s t f o r I t was J a w a h a r l a l ' s i n t e n t i o n a t
gotten memories',
m a n i t y , but he was controlled.
first to publish only Gandhi ji's
" A Bunch o f Old L e t t e r s W r i t t e n
Three or four types of letters be
letters to h i m .
B u t this was not
M o s t l y t o J a w a h a r l a l N e h r u and
l
o
n
g
to
the
political
arena
In
a
done, and wisely. Gandhiji's letters
Some W r i t t e n b y H i m ' . A s i a Pubsense,
they
should
not
have
been
were short and crisp, relevant, and
l i s h i n g House,
B o m b a y . 1958.
there
but
f
o
r
the
greatness
of
t
w
o
of
wise. N o t h i n g but the bare essenPrice Rs 12.50.
the
correspondents,
Sarojini
N
a
i
d
u
tials are there. He h a d p o l i t i c a l
E d w a r d Thompson's
genius,
but his letters were
not and Tagore.
long,
ebullient
letters
could have seen
purely p o l i t i c a l . He was h u m a n ,
o
m
i
t
t
e
d
,
since
they
m
a k e no sense.
yet his h u m a n i t y was m i n g l e d w i t h
politics. He was wise in politics, N o r d i d Tagore's. He was certawise in action, a n d wise in concen- i n l y the most b r i l l i a n t letter-writer
in I n d i a , and one of the best in the
t r a t e d h u m a n i t y . H e was d o w n r i g h t
(vide, his letter to A g a t h a H a r r i s o n : w o r l d . It seems t h a t here he was
B u t S a r o j i n i was
'But t h o u g h J a w a h a r l a l is extreme handicapped.
b
r
i
l
l
i
a
n
t
as
ever.
E m o t i o n a l , no
in
his
presentation
of
his
doubt
but
she
could
not but be
methods,
he
is
sober
in
e m o t i o n a l . Hers was the sincerity
action
My m e t h o d is designed
of emotions. She was w h a t she
to a v o i d conflict.
H i s is not so
was, a nonpareil, unique
of her
designed. My o w n feeling is t h a t
kind.
J a w a h a r l a l w i l l accept decisions o f
In a l l , about 19 letters out of 366
the m a j o r i t y of his colleagues'.)
121
January, 1959
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY ANNUAL
122