REVIEWS
Nehru: A
Contemporary’s Estimate by Walter Crocker. Published by George
Allen and Unwin, London. Pages l86. Price 28 sh.
Jawaharlal Nehru: Life
and Work by M. Chalapathi Rau. Re. 1.50.
The Nehru Legacy: A Symposium.
Rs. 5. Both published by the National Book Club, 12, Meena
Bagh, New Delhi-1.
Once
that intriguing question ‘After Nehru, who or what?’ has, in fact, been
answered, quite a few political writers seem to divert themselves with the
other question “Nehru’s India–whither or what?” It might be something of an
irony of fate that some of his old critics have since found it a profitable
hobby to find fault with his successors for not continuing his well-known
policies. On the other hand, some of his erstwhile admirers feel slightly
superior and derive a curious satisfaction from the new-found habit of
‘dispassionate’ analysis, in which they claim to find Nehru wanting in many
substantial respects. Mr. Walter Crocker, the Australian diplomat, in his Contemporary’s
Estimate, runs the risk of falling into the second category. He professes
to have been an ardent admirer of Nehru the man, though, when the reader is not
yet half through the book, the ardour cools off perceptibly.
In
his approach to Nehru, an observer like Mr. Crocker starts with a distinct
advantage. He can afford to be rather dispassionate, for he may remain
comparatively uncommitted. Not that in this case he is actually uncommitted. At
best, it is a semblance, at worst a pretension. Academically, it is just
possible that he can retain a certain balance. But does this balance always
imply that the writer should neatly cancel out every achievement with a black
mark for something else, momentous or trivial?
Mr.
Crocker was in India for over six years between 1952 and 1962 as head of the
Australian mission (and later as High Commissioner) and had ample opportunities
to watch his subject at close quarters and study it in every detail. He does
justice to his own powers of description in presenting a vivid close-up of the
Indian Prime Minister; proud and chivalrous, sensitive and artistic, noble and
generous, impatient and irritable.
It
is hardly possible to belittle the role of Gandhi and Nehru as the twin
apostles of Indian freedom and yet try to understand them as patriots and
political leaders. But this is just what Mr. Crocker would do, in his ingenious
excursion into political affairs. Now for a gem of political wisdom, one of the
many, he drops on the wayside, with a calculated prodigality:
“Nehru’s
record for intransigence has to be stressed because there is grave question
whether his way of getting independence for India was the only way, or indeed a
good way. Equally patriotic and equally clever Indians – Indians, such as
Sapru, thought not.”
How
conveniently he forgets (or is he so blissfully unaware of the basic facts of
the history of Indian politics?) that but for the ‘intransigence’ of Nehru and
the millions who thought with him, there would not be the freedom that we know
of. And as for Sapru and company, it was true that they were as clever
as Nehru, or cleverer still, but all their cleverness could make
no dent on the intransigence of the British rulers for decades. And,
pray, who told Mr. Crocker that Nehru was clever? He was known to be
intelligent, yes, thoughtful and far-sighted; but far from being clever. Not
even his worst enemies could say that she was clever or cunning
(which Mr. Crocker does hint at directly or indirectly more than once in his
own attempts to be subtle as an analyst of human character and the political
situation).
The
two major issues on which Mr. Crocker virtually write Mr. Nehru off as a
statesman are the Sino-Indian dispute (leading to the invasion by China) and
the Goa problem, which was settled, once for all, by the India Government
occupying the Portuguese territory (actually, the Indian enclaves under
Portuguese hegemony, because of a historical accident, traceable to a
long-forgotten matrimonial deal between two European dynasties). On the Chinese
aggression, the author writes under the assumption that India was as much to
blame as China (luckily for us, he does not go as far as Bertrand Russell, who
seemed to feel that India was more to blame and should, therefore, make it up
with China).
He
assumes that a border dispute with China is just a border dispute, and that
Communist China is just like any other Asian or European State. Is Mr. Croker
so simple as not to realise that as the leader of
militant communism in Asia and Africa, China has its own political dialectic
and military strategy? And it attacks not where it is most provoked from, but
where it knows that the other side is least protected. Hong Kong is still in
tact and Formosa is left untouched. Was there ever no provocation from the latter?
But Peking knows the strength of the American Seventh Fleet only too well. And
as for the other Asian neighbours, it knows how to pick and choose. But every
country will have its turn, in due course, may be not excluding Pakistan. If
the first blow fell on India, as the spearhead of a different way of life
(parliamentary democracy, socialist planning, personal liberty and so on), it
should not surprise any student of current affairs, not in the least, a shrewd
diplomat like Mr. Crocker.
On
Goa Mr. Crocker chooses to be even more harsh and less perspicacious. He
suggests, almost like a leader of the opposition in the Indian Parliament, that
it was a put-up job and a sort of pre-election stunt. He stops at nothing, for
a man of his restraint:
“Nehru’s
biographers, if they care for the high moral reputation which he had enjoyed
for so long, and for its decline, will have to seek for the reasons, which led
him to Goa, no less than for the reasons which led to his stand on Kashmir.
Until then, Nehru remains charged with machiavellianism….Nehru in spite of Goa,
was no hypocrite and no impostor...”
The
author must have heard of Pondicherry and how its future was peacefully settled
by the French Government, whose title to it was no worse than that of the Portuguese.
The surprise was not that the occupation of Goa came off the way it did in
1962, but that it did not come earlier. He may also be aware of the Portugese
colonial methods in Angola and Mozambique. That they got a beating where they
deserved most should not have riled Mr. Crocker unduly. India’s territorial
sovereignty over the enclaves had been proved to the hilt by Mr. V. K. K. Menon
and Mr. Nehru himself. He seemed, however, to strain at a gnat in this as in
many other things in his account, the same author who could swallow camels
elsewhere.
In
the overall estimate itself, Mr. Crocker, the career diplomat that he can never
cease to be even as an author, tends to scrutinise the life and work of Nehru
as if he were sitting in judgment over the confidential record of a junior
civil servant. Only too rarely do the realisation dawn on him that Nehru Was
the prime architect of the Indian Revolution, unfinished though it be (as it
must needs be continuing), besides being the first Prime Minister of Free India
and the leader of the freedom struggle in India and also its inspirer in some
of the other countries in Asia and Africa.
In
discussing Nehru the Prime Minister, the author devotes some considerable space
to two other significant personalities, closely associated with
him at one stage or another in his stewardship. For Rajaji, he seems to have
the highest regard, bordering on the hero worship of an active member of the
Swatantra Party.
On
the character of Krishna Menon, the author has something to say that comes near
the truth; and he says it with admirable subtlety. To the credit of Mr.
Crocker, it must be said that there is no padding in his book, which is tightly
packed with facts, opinions and arguments. But there is little in it, by way of
a transforming sympathy or a deep understanding of the subject to enthuse over
the publication, Prof. Toynbee’s good chit notwithstanding.
As
an antidote to the polished innuendoes and plausible insinuations generously
indulged in throughout ‘a contemporary’s estimate’ by Mr. Crocker, one can do
worse than turn one’s attention to another contemporary’s estimate–that of Mr.
Chalapathi Rau in his booklet entitled “Jawaharlal Nehru: Life and Work”. It
is a collection of half-a-dozen radio talks given by the author after Nehru’s
death. As Editor of The National Herald for nearly two decades
now, Mr. Chalapathi Rau has had occasion not only to interpret and comment on
the basic policies of Nehru, the foreign policy in
particular, but spell them out and restate them, from time to time, for the
benefit of Nehru himself as well the far-flung readers. In a way, it would
hardly be an exaggeration to state that he had shared, indirectly though, in
the task of evolving India’s foreign policy through the years. He rightly considers
Nehru, in foreign policy as in other things, the great educator. Here is his
comment:
“Jawaharlal Nehru could not think of foreign policy as a success or failure. It keeps growing. But he saw the validity of some principles, however much they are broken in practice. The Five Principles of Peace remained valid for him, whatever may have happened. He annotated co-existence into peaceful co-existence. He worked passionately for the future and instructed Indian delegations to the U. N. to put their weight on the side of peace, disarmament and international cooperation. He brought peace to Korea and Indo-China. He sent Indian troops on mercy missions. He was not interested in the meta-physics of non-violence, though he accepted its morality. He disliked wars, the wars of history, imperialism’s wars, fascism’s wars and even cold war…..”
Those
who find nothing easier or merrier nowadays than having a fling at Nehru’s
foreign policy might ponder, even if they cannot endorse, this summing up:
“To
dabble in foreign affairs is easy, with a never ending flow of material, briefs
arid memoranda and correspondence. But to deal with foreign affairs with
authority and comprehension requires not only knowledge, but vision. Besides
Jawaharlal Nehru, most world leaders looked petty and provincial. His vision
was clear and consistent, and whatever the setbacks, it remained unclouded.”
Unlike
Mr. Crocker, who ends up by dismissing Nehru as a destroyer rather than as a
builder, Mr. Chalapathi Rau has no doubts about his place in history. He
observes:
“
...whatever the controversies over certain policies, it cannot be denied that
he laid the foundations of our democracy, our secularism, our socialism and of
our policy towards the rest of the world. The record cannot be forgotten or
washed away, and whatever else may happen, these unending processes, which he
established cannot be reversed...By whatever standards anyone can judge him,
Nehru’s place is by the side of Gandhi. Like Buddha and Ashoka, like Marx and
Lenin, Gandhi and Nehru go together. What else, besides? It is for history to
worry. Jawaharlal Nehru lives in the hearts and minds of men not only because
of the splendour of his image or because of his shinning character, but because
he is so much an intimate part of modern India....”
Quite
a few books on Nehru had come out in recent years. But
a definitive biography of him is not yet. Mr. Chalapathi Rau who
knows so much on the subject and has all the sympathy, understanding and
admiration (not uncritical by any means) expected of a biographer, should
undertake a full-length work if justice were to be done to the memory of Nehru.
In the symposium on The Nehru Legacy, he gives the reader more than a
glimpse of what he alone happens to know of some little-known aspects of Nehru.
That Nehru had many facets to his personality; all of comparable brilliance, is
borne out by six other contributors including Mr.
Kamaraj and Prof. Hiren Mukerji, Mr. M. C. Setalvad and Dr. Gyanchand,
representing a wide enough variety of political affiliations and intellectual
interests.
–CHITRAGUPTA
Hindu Culture and
Personality by Philip Spratt. Published by Manaktalas,
Bombay. Pages 400. Price Rs. 32.
The
author professes in the preface, with remarkable modesty, that the book is an
attempt to gain an understanding of Hindu culture, with the help of
Psycho-analytic ideas. But it is really, a very ambitious and laudable
endeavour towards a close and scientific study of the culture of the people of
this ancient land which, according to him, is historically continuous and
psychologically homogeneous.
It
is often assured that Hinduism is essentially a religious and philosophical
tradition, deriving from the Vedas, crystallising in the Upanishads, the
Brahmasutras and the Gita, and culminating , in
the great commentaries of the medieval period: that most of its
other features relating to religious ritual modes of worships social
institutions and practices have been acquired from sources external to this
great tradition: and that therefore Hinduism, is a heterogeneous collection of
culture traits.
The
study of Hindu personality and culture, from the point of view of
psycho-analysis, attempted by the author in this book, on the other hand, leads
to the conclusion that Hindu culture, and he includes Buddhism and Jainism in
his conception of Hindu culture, is psychological theory which accounts for the
characteristic religious attitudes, philosophical doctrines, and social
practices, of Yoga, tapasya, satyagraha, nishkama karma and anatha, caste, the
village goddess cult, and the popular mythologies, and presents them as the
different phases and facets of the same personality type and cultural
tradition.
The
qualifications which he claims for writing on the subject of a sympathetic
understanding of the Hindu mind by virtue of having lived in India for more
than thirty five years, in intimate contact, almost exclusively with Hindus,
and at the same time an objective scientific attitude towards it by virtue of
his not being a Hindu, must be conceded.
The psycho-analytic ideas are not, as the author recognises, as familiar in India as in the West, but he explains that he has used them in his study in a scientific spirit, as hypotheses to direct attention to truth which is not easily reached in any other way, and pleads that they should be accepted in the same spirit. But the range of the study attempted is so comprehensive, the knowledge of the subject exhibited so detailed and accurate, and the explanation offered and conclusions arrived at so logical, consistent and convincing and conducive to national integration in the present and concerted endeavour towards adaptation to modern circumstances and future progress, that the Indian reader is sure to be tempted to acquire the necessary minimum acquaintances with psycho-analysis, its ideas, classifications and their application, in order to understand the contents and appreciate the conclusions.
The
author is a foreigner who felt the call of India early in his life, and
dedicated himself to the service of this ancient land, ever since he came out
to this country in 1926, when he was a young man of 24. His participation in
the movement for the political freedom of the country and the distinction he
won in the field of journalism later, are well-known to the intelligentia of
the land. But this scientific study of the culture of the land is his
culminating achievement in the service of a country which he has loved
ardently, for which we should feel highly grateful.
The
theory of projective extroversion expounded in Chapter 2 deserves the special
attention of the reader as it constitutes an original contribution of the
author to the science of psycho-analysis, and as he seems to attempt to account
for the characteristic ethical attitudes and philosophical doctrines of
Hinduism and Buddhism with reference to it, and further he seems to consider it
the unique contribution of Hinduism to the civilisation of the human race.
–M. SIVAKAMAYYA
From Mind to Supermind
(a commentary on the Bhagavadgita) by Rohit Mehta. P. C.
Manaktala and Sons Private Ltd., Bombay-I. Pages 210. Price Rs. 20.
This
is a new, readable commentary in English on the Bhagavadgita by Sri Rohit
Mehta, an eminEnt Theosophist and art international lecturer. There are some
novel features in this commentary. Even in naming the chapters the author has
shown his originality. The 12th and the 13th chapters, for instance, are named
as “The one without a home” and the “Silent watcher” respectively. The author
selects a few slokas only in each chapter and expounds them in such a manner
that each chapter reads as a lecture coherent and complete in itself. He does
not delve deep into the technical subtleties of textual interpretations on
traditional lines. Nor does he devote himself to polemics. His approach is
psychological and practical, his presentation of the subject is clear and
analytical, so much so, this commentary has a direct appeal to the busy modern
man, who cannot wade through the traditional classical commentaries on the
Gita.
In
the opinion of the author, the Gita is a book dealing with the Yoga of
integration, and in the Psychological integration man has to be a pilgrim along
the three paths of (1) knowledge (2) devotion and (3) action as well. The Gita
leads Arjuna from mind to supermind.
The
Bhagavadgita, the author declares, enunciates the gospel of right action which
is possible through right perception alone, which again can be obtained through
Yoga which is defined in the Gita in three places as (1) dissociation from that
which gives an association with sorrow (2) equilibrium and (3) skill in action.
Dissociation from the three qualities, sattva, rajas and tamas
gives equilibrium. This gives skill in action, when man achieves right
perception, he becomes an integrated man Yukta and the creation of an
integrated individual is the purpose and the dynamic message of the Gita.
The
most significant and interesting contribution that the author makes, consists
in the symbolical and Psychological interpretation of many of the words that we
come across in the text. Srikrishna represents the cosmic will and Arjuna
represents the individual will. The Kurukshetra war is only symbolical of this
inner war of two wills….Yukta or integrated man is one who combines in
himself knowledge, devotion and action. Samkhya and Yoga can be described as
right perception and right action (p, 22). Action without attachment is action
done not out of necessity but out of spontaneity.
The
meaning and purpose of an Avatara is scientifically explained with suitable
illustrations. The word Vikarma means reaction but not wrong action. The
state where all reactions drop away is Akarma or inaction which
corresponds to the skillness of mind (p. 48). To sacrifice is to be a witness
to oneself. The relation between Jnana Yoga and Karma Yoga is that of
experience and expression (p. 56). The two lines of thought, Occultism and
Mystic approach, are seen in Samkhya and Yoga (p. 62). Knowledge is tuition
from without and wisdom is tuition from within...To think upon Him at the time
of death is, according to the author, but cessation of thought (p. 87).
Fire, light, daytime, bright fortnight and Uttarayana mentioned in the 8th chapter represent the condition of alertness, clarity of mind, period of action, feeling of abiding love and clear consciousness. To see one self in the midst of routine of daily life, as a witness, is the essence of Japa Yajria (p. 101). The saying of the Lord that “He is the gambling of the cheat” means that the mystic and the devotee who can gamble away their lives, and who in their communion with the unborn and the unmanifest play high stakes in the game of life, find themselves in possession of Life Eternal.
According
to Sri Rohit Mehta, “Knowledge, Devotion and Action are not three distinct and
separate paths having no relationship with each other. On the contrary they
together make the whole. It does not matter which is the starting point.”
While
commenting on the last verse of the Gita the author concludes in a brilliant
manner. “When vision or Yoga and action or Dhanuh are combined, when mind and
supermind function in perfect harmony, when mind invites buddhi to be its
charioteer, then the victory in the battle is assured. The mind to become an
instrument of the supermind–this verily is the message of the Bhagavadgita.”
Brimming
with brilliant ideas, couched in pithy sentences, presented in a palatable
manner, besprinkled and bespiced with quotations here and there from the works
of Dr. Radhakrishnan, Blavatsky and some English poets, this commentary, in
short, is old wine in new bottles, which, if assimilated, is sure to tone up
the spirit of the modern man to whom in particular this is intended.
–B. KUTUMBA RAO