Nehru’s correspondence with Edwina contained matters of national importance, for he used to share his thinking with her. Hence, they are of vital historical importance, and not just something that are merely personal—of no consequence. Yet they are being treated as if they are the personal property of the Dynasty, and are being kept a closely guarded secret. Stanley Wolpert mentions in the preface to his book, ‘Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny’, he tried to access the letters, but failed.
Reportedly, Nehru used to go to London to be with Edwina almost every year, or she used to come to India, and stay with him—after independence.
Also, reportedly, one of the jobs of Krishna Menon as High Commissioner in London, for which he used to gladly volunteer, was to receive Nehru at the airport at any hour and drive him down to Edwina’s secluded country house—Broadlands.
Says Stanley Wolpert: “Nehru flew off again to London...Krishna Menon was waiting with the Rolls, as usual, at London’s airport and drove him back to Edwina shortly before midnight...Indira was upset by her father’s unrelenting obsession with 'that Mountbatten lady'!”
While one doesn't really care for the personal side of it—considering they were two consenting adults—could such relationship have compromised Nehru or India's political cause in any way?
Edwina Mountbatten, about whose relationship with Nehru a lot has been written, would have most likely persuaded Nehru to go by the counsel of Mountbatten and take the Kashmir matter to the UN.
Reportedly, Mountbatten himself admitted that he used his wife to get an insight into Nehru’s mind and, where needed, influence Nehru when he failed to bring him round to his view. Philip Zeigler, Mountbatten's biographer, stated that Mountbatten encouraged loving relationship between his wife and Nehru—to this end.
Maulana Azad, a pro-Nehru person, expresses bewilderment in his autobiography as to how a person like Jawaharlal was won over by Lord Mountbatten; mentions Nehru’s weakness of being impulsive and amenable to personal influences, and wonders if the Lady Mountbatten factor was responsible.
MJ Akbar in his book, ‘Nehru: The Making of India’, writes about the encounter of Russi Mody, once the Chief Executive of Tata Steel, with Nehru at Nainital where Nehru was staying with his father and UP Governor, Sir Homi Mody:
“Sir Homi was very pukka, and when the gong sounded at eight he instructed his son to go to the Prime Minister’s bedroom and tell him dinner was ready. Russi Mody marched up, opened the door and saw Jawaharlal and Edwina in a clinch. Jawaharlal looked at Russi Mody and grimaced. Russi quickly shut the door and walked out.”
Tunzelmann writes in ‘Indian Summer’: “Jinnah had been handed a small collection of letters that had been written by Edwina and Jawahar. ‘Dickie [Mountbatten] will be out tonight—come after 10.00 o’clock,’ said one of Edwina’s. Another revealed that ‘You forgot your handkerchief and before Dickie could spot it I covered it up.’ A third said ‘I have fond memories of Simla—riding and your touch.’” Incidentally, Jinnah did not use the letters.
Writes K Natwar Singh in his article ‘Jawaharlal Nehru and the Mountbattens’ in The Hindu of 14 November 2008: “I once asked Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Nehru’s sister, if the rumours about her brother having an affair with Edwina Mountbatten were true. She was herself a diva and uninhibited in her conversation. She said to me: ‘Of course he did. And good for him.’”
Blunder–89 :
To Hell with Gandhism & Simplicity
Gandhi had spoken thus of Jawaharlal Nehru: “He says whatever is uppermost in his mind, but he always does what I want. When I am gone, he will do what I am doing now. Then he will speak my language too.” Had Gandhi watched from the heavens the acts of his chosen protégé, he would have been shocked
Rather than his master's simplicity, Nehru adopted ostentatious Viceroy-like trappings. Nehru, who had ranted against rajas, maharajas, nawabs and feudal lords, adopted lordly and feudal ways, and allowed the same to prosper under his “democratic” watch.
After Independence, Gandhiji had suggested that the Governor-General of free India should stay in a modest accommodation, rather than in the huge and imposing Viceroy palace—later named as Rashtrapati Bhavan—which should be converted into a public hospital. But, Nehru advised that an alternate suitable accommodation was not available! What bluff!! The place next in stateliness and grandeur to the Viceroy palace was the residence of the British Commander-in-Chief, then called Flagstaff House. Leaving his York Road residence, Nehru occupied this magnificent house, which was later renamed as Teen Murti Bhavan. Others followed Nehru's example, occupying huge, spacious bungalows. British had deliberately designed these palaces and bungalows to intimidate the natives, appear remote, and command respect. What was the logic of the leaders of free India to follow in their footsteps?
Wrote MO Mathai, Special Assistant to Nehru from 1946 to 1959, in ‘Reminiscences of the Nehru Age’:
“At 10 Downing Street, the British Prime Minister has only a couple of suites of rooms for his personal use. All the rest are offices and a few are public rooms...Tage Erlander, the Social Democratic Prime Minister of affluent Sweden, for twenty years lived in a three room flat. His wife was a teacher... The Swedish Government did not provide him with a car. The PM and his wife had a small car which they drove themselves. They could not afford to keep a driver... Labour Prime Minister Joseph Chiefley of rich Australia lived in two rooms in a second class hotel near his office. His wife preferred to live on their farm... The PM was not provided with a car. He walked between his hotel and his office...”
What an irony! The non-Gandhians of the rich, Western countries were being Gandhi-like; while the “Gandhian” Nehru and other Congressmen of our own poor, pathetic, post-independent India were adopting the ways of rajas and maharajas, whose feudal, privileged lifestyle they had been cursing all through!
Writes S. Nijalingappa in ‘My Life and Politics’: “But after becoming prime minister, he [Nehru] left 17 York Road, a fairly large building and moved to possibly the second largest official residence next to the Rashtrapati Bhavan. His reason of doing so was that official dignity required it. In contrast, I may mention the instance of Ho Chi Minh, the president, Vietnam. When I saw him during his visit to Delhi, he said he had only a few clothes and only two pairs of sandals and lived in a small house. But, in independent India, simple living became an exception. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, throughout his stay in Delhi, whether before or after accepting office, lived in a small house at Aurangzeb Road, only large enough for himself and his daughter.”
Nehru loyalist, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, had remarked: “Jawaharlal has performed the last rites not only of Gandhi but of Gandhism as well.”
Wrote Durga Das in ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’: “Mrs. [Vijayalaxmi] Pandit [Nehru’s sister] told me: ‘I never travel without Ahmed (her liveried peon). The common people know me to be a Minister because Ahmed is with me. They salaam “Ahmed’s livery”.’ Nehru himself realised this well enough when he became the Prime minister and had a retinue of peons and security staff—several times the size any Viceroy had had—when he moved among people.”
Blunder–90 :
Full of Hubris
It has been said by many that it was Nehru’s intransigence and arrogance post-1937 elections that caused irreparable rift with the Muslim League, and contributed to the call for the formation of Pakistan by Jinnah (this is covered earlier under ‘Putting-off Jinnah: Setting him on Path to Pakistan’).
In a conference of Asian-African countries in 1955, the then prime minister of Sri Lanka, John Kotelawala, took some potshots at communism and related things. Nehru later accosted him and asked why he had not shown his speech to him beforehand. Pat came the reply from John Kotelawala to Nehru, “Why should I show you my speeches—you don’t show me yours!’’
Sankar Ghose in his ‘Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography’, quotes Zhou Enlai: “I have met many leaders of the world...I met Khrushchev. I met Chiang Kai-shek, I’ve met Ame
rican generals. But I have never met a more arrogant man than Nehru. I am sorry to say this, but this is true.”
In a lighter vein, it is also said that Zhou Enlai was in fact so highly cheesed off with Nehru's condescending behaviour that he inflicted India-China war to avenge it! During his talks with Kissinger, he was reported to have said that Nehru had become so cocky that China decided to put down his cockiness.
Nehru had visited the US in 1961. Writes Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’: “Kennedy organised a breakfast meeting between Nehru and top US economists and foreign policy experts. Nehru was late for the meeting and generally monosyllabic in his responses. The breakfast ended in 20 minutes. Some of them reported this to Kennedy who remarked in the presence of his aides that Nehru had ‘lived too long’.”
Says Dalai Lama in his autobiography, ‘Freedom in Exile’: “I [Dalai Lama] then explained [to Nehru] that I had not originally intended to seek India’s hospitality [feeling let down by Nehru’s attitude] but that I had wanted to establish my Government at Lhuntse Dzong. Only the news from Lhasa had changed my mind. At this point he [Nehru] became rather irritated. ‘The Indian Government could not have recognised it even if you had,’ he said. “I began to get the impression that Nehru thought of me as a young person who needed to be scolded from time to time. During other parts of the conversation he banged the table. ‘How can this be?’ he asked indignantly once or twice. However, I went on in spite of the growing evidence that he could be a bit of a bully...”
Reportedly neither Viceroy Linlithgow nor Wavell gave any importance to Nehru. Many British found Nehru to be vain and supercilious. In their dealings after Indian independence, the Americans too found Nehru to be arrogant.
Here is another example of Nehru’s snobbishness. Even as India was going around the world with a begging bowl, Nehru didn’t flinch from being sarcastic on Southeast Asian countries and their economy, which had actually been doing far better.
Writes Durga Das in ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’ (Rupa, Page# 342): “A talk with the Prime Minister of Thailand was very revealing. He complained that Nehru had characterised the Thai Government as corrupt [what about the financial scandals in the Nehru government?] and said the country had a ‘Coca-Cola economy’.
“Thailand, the Prime Minister explained to me, had a long tradition of independence, and if she had taken shelter under the U.S. umbrella it had done so to safeguard her independence. If Nehru was willing to underwrite their security [it’s another matter India could not secure itself!], the Thais would prefer to be with India since Thai culture was predominantly Indian [he didn’t know that India under Nehru didn’t care for its own culture!].
“When I suggested that a visit by the King and the Prime Minister to India would improve matters, he replied that their very experience Ambassador in New Delhi had warned them against inviting an insult by undertaking such a visit. They treated their ruler as a demi-god, and he would not go to India unless assured of a cordial welcome.”
Many wonder what made Nehru so full of hubris? It could certainly not have been on account of his academics or his earnings or his books. If he knew good English, so did many others. If he was educated in England, so also many others. If he was westernised, so were many others. If he had participated in the Freedom Struggle, so had thousands, and many had actually sacrificed much more.
If he thought he was exceptionally intelligent and knowledgeable and a great leader, how come he made so many blunders—all major, with severe long term adverse consequences for the country. In fact, Nehru was able to dominate only because while he was still active in politics, almost all his equals and superiors and potential rivals died—Gandhi, Subhas Bose, Patel, Ambedkar.
This “arrogance” aspect of Nehru is not being highlighted as a personal negative. Because, if it were just that, one may ignore it. It actually had harmful consequences for the nation. It came in the way of others sharing their opinions with him freely—they were afraid of his temper and arrogance. This prevented him from heeding sane advice of others and doing course-correction even when things were going down-hill. He made blunder after blunder with no one daring to counsel him.
There is an episode in Stanley Wolpert’s book, ‘Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny’, which is as revealing as it is disturbing. While in England he wrote to his father, Motilal, that his [Jawaharlal’s] chief reason for wishing to go to Oxford was that “Cambridge is becoming too full of Indians!” Such airs from the grandson of the policeman, Gangadhar Nehru!
MJ Akbar in ‘Nehru: The Making of India’, writes about an episode in the pre-independence period of a number of poor villagers from the villages near Allahabad approaching him to verify their actual extremely pathetic condition first-hand. Nehru was not particularly enthusiastic about taking up the mission, particularly in the hot summers. However, “He was touched when he learned that hundreds of ill-clad villagers had built roads for him overnight so that his car could take him to the innermost recesses of rural India; and saw the eagerness with which they physically lifted his car when it got stuck in the soft mud. After all, he was still an Indian sahib in a hat and silk underwear.”
Nehru’s height of hubris was, of course, Panchsheel. It cost India dear. In the post-Independence euphoria of the 1950s Nehru strutted the world stage as a pacifist leader of the newly-formed group of non-aligned nations; and patted himself for engineering the Panchsheel Agreement (please see Blunder-27 for details) of 1954 with China that he believed would ensure peace with our northern neighbour, despite the sane warnings by many that he was thereby substituting a peaceful neighbour Tibet with a dangerous enemy all along the long northern border from the Karakoram ranges in Ladakh to Burma that would cost India heavy to defend. The wise Chinese leadership must have viewed Nehru with amusement and disbelief that a leader of a great nation like India could be so irresponsible and lacking in foresight.
Even before independence and decision on partition, it was Nehru’s hubris and irresponsible statements in a press conference on the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan (that envisaged united but federal India: please see Blunder-7) that led Jinnah to take a hard stand on Partition. Partition and Pakistan could have been avoided had Nehru been circumspect, and had checked his hubris.
Nehru was reported to have said: “I am the last Englishman to rule India!” Nehru believed his destiny was to rule the brown masses; and that he alone knew how best to do it. No wonder, he ignored sane advice. Examine, dissect and analyse any Indian problem, and you would notice Nehru’s unmistakable finger-prints—such was his hubris.
Dynacracy (Dynastic Democracy)
Blunder–91 :
Dynastic Politics
Jawaharlal Nehru was unfairly promoted by his father, Motilal Nehru; and in the true dynastic tradition, Nehru promoted Indira, who in turn, even more shamelessly promoted her progeny. When Motilal Nehru retired as the Congress president in 1929, he made sure by lobbying with Gandhi that his son, Jawaharlal, ascended the gaddi, over the heads of people much more senior and capable than him.
Dynacracy (Dynastic democracy) is bad not just because we resent some having unfair advantage, it is bad because it results in mediocrity, and it discounts merit. The quality of leadership emerging out of a dynastic process can never be really good. For proof, check for yourself the unutterable underachievements of the underwhelming leadership of the dynasts, at the state or at the Centre, and how it has become worse and worse down the generation: for example, the reverse geometric progression from Nehru down to Rahul Gandhi.
Although Indira Gandhi had done little work for the Congress, she was made a member of the Congress Working Committee in 1955—entry directly from the top, rather than rising from the bottom.
In 1957, Indira was made member of the powerful Central Election Committee. In 1958, she became a member of the Central Parliamentary Board—Nehru made a vacancy for her by himself resigning from the Board: a deft move!
She was then made President of the Congress i
n 1959, to the astonishment of all, after an intense behind the scenes drama, managed through others by Nehru. Nehru had thus commented on her being made the President: “I am proud of Indira Gandhi as my daughter, my comrade and now as my leader. It is superfluous for me to say that I love her. I am proud of her integrity and truthfulness.”
Nehru had also started developing her as a public figure. By making her the official host, Nehru gave her exposure to foreign dignitaries and guests. Nehru also sent her on various foreign assignments like India’s representative to the UNESCO’s Executive Board, and tour of foreign countries on Nehru’s behalf.
After the 1962-debacle, and his plunging popularity, Nehru used the Kamaraj Plan of 1963 to clear the way for Indira from the seniors. Morarji Desai, who had not objected then, later told Brecher about the Kamaraj Plan: “It seemed to have been motivated not only to get rid of him [Morarji] but also to pave the way for Mrs Gandhi to the Prime ministership.” S Nijalingappa, who had been the Congress President, had noted that Nehru had always been grooming his daughter for the Prime Ministership.
Acharya Kriplani believed that the evils in the country emanated from the top and that Nehru was the pace-setter in abusing patronage and power.
“Another such instance I remember was when Dr. S. Radhakrishnan was president of India...I used to call on him whenever I was in Delhi...In his talks with me, as I believe with others too, he was very frank and open. One day, when I went to him he said, "Nijalingappa, today I put my foot down. Do you know why?’ He then continued, ‘Pandit Nehru comes to me and wants me to make his sister, Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, vice-president of India. I had to tell him, “You are the prime minister of India, your daughter is the president of Indian National Congress and you want your sister to be vice-president. What would people say? I cannot have it.” I put my foot down and sent him away."
Nehru's 97 Major Blunders Page 21