Our secularist–"Romantics" Pankaj Mishra–writing for the New York Times among others, also contributes to the secularist Outlook India. This book review is just a sample. Mishra starts off promisingly, but I suspect his secularist soul clamours with earnest to degenerate, to turn a book review into a pseudo-commentary/reflection on the "BJP-fundamentalist threat" that looms large in India today. His assessment of Nehru as a confused statesman, a statesman whose ideals are impossible to practice is correct; this forms the introduction of his review. But he kind of suddenly jumps to the actual review like this:

…after the swift undermining of Nehru?s cherished projects (secularism, socialism, and non-alignment) in the 1990s and the seizure of state power by a political organisation with a millenarian ideology.

I know I have thrashed the subject of Nehru, Socialism, Secularism and their various other cousins ad nauseam in my blog, so I won’t repeat them here. In context of this review, Pankaj Mishra only reveals his bias here. None of these "cherished projects" have done any good to our country, so undermining them was, I feel, the right thing to do. On an other point, if I were you, Mr. Mishra, I would think before I wrote stuff like "seizure of power" and "millenarian ideology." I’m not pro any political party, but the past 4-5 years have seen India grow in stature as well as in wealth, if economic and political indicators are anything to go by. And "seizure of power" makes it sound like somebody just effected a bloody coup. Or is writing in this manner a standard secularist tactic?

I read, was taught, and humbly believe that one is supposed to be objective while doing a book review. Yet our Literary Giant uses these words in his review,

Disappointingly, Brown chooses not to reflect upon these recent events, how they might be related to the way Nehru saw and ruled India.

"Disappointingly?" Does Mishra mean to tell the author to tailor her work according to some predetermined/predefined expectations/criteria? If not, such parts of the book (or the entire book itself) are "disappointing?" But I don’t understand the logic. The focus of the book is on Nehru’s Political Life. I suppose by that we mean it has to do with Nehru’s political ideologies, policies, thoughts, etcetera. Or–looking at it another way–are you suggesting what the author should write?

But she makes little attempt to explore the many interesting continuities between Nehru?s secular nationalism and Hindutva.

Huh? I don’t profess having knowledge about the continuities that you speak of. Can you please name one, just as an example? If my analysis is anything to go by, Hindutva began as a panic-striken reaction against the successive Congress governments that capitulated to the Muslim vote bank at the expense of the "majority." Where’s the continuity?

Preferring analysis to narrative, she gives little attention to Nehru?s emotional life.

Mr. Mishra, I think is going the way of Kuldip Nayar in terms of contradictions. In one place, he wants the author to provide an analytical contrast of Nehru’s vision of India versus the current (read: Millenarian-propogating, state-seizing) India. Isn’t this analysis? Here, he prefers that the author provide a narrative. Again, if the title is anything to go by, it says, "Nehru–A Political Life," not, "Nehru-An Emotional Narrative (or is it analysis? I’m confused)." Methinks, based on convenience, Mishra would have preferred a fine balance, an analytical narrative however idiotic it may sound.

You still have to go to S. Gopal?s biography for an account of Nehru?s intellectual development.

I’ve read that book here and there, and it comes close to almost describing Nehru as a perfect statesman. From an anonymous source, this book earned (late) Gopal lot of goodwill in Delhi’s political circles back then. He’s the grandson of S.Radhakrishnan, and is on Arun Shourie’s list of "Eminent Historians." Unless I’m reading between the lines, our man here is indulging in a bit of Mutual Admiration Society Activity.

…that Nehru believed sincerely, until at least India?s disastrous war with China in 1962, that the land of the Buddha and Gandhi should stand for something other than the crude hypocrisies of realpolitik.

Unfortunately, Nehru was too naive (?) in his policy with China as he was with other international policies. How could he not, as the Prime Minister of a country, think of securing his borders first before venturing out to make treaties/friendships with neighbours, however smooth-talking they were? Is this sheer naivity or outright stupidity? Or is it Mishra’s way of covering up his Chinese Tragedy? "…hypocrises of realpolitik?" Get real, Mishra. Politics is dirty business or has become dirty business. I doubt Nehru believed in the high ideals of Buddha and Gandhi; if he had, he wouldn’t have led millions of innocent Tibetans to their gory ends, albeit indirectly, and directly, to the annhilation of the state of Tibet. Again, Buddha and Gandhi are not the idols worthy of emulation especially as political people. Kautilya is.

There is no doubt that Nehru would have been horrified by Narendra Modi?s election victory in Gujarat, by the degeneration of democracy into a crude majoritarianism that feeds on a hectic demonising of Muslims and other minorities.

Don’t these secularists ever tire of bleating such cliches over and over? Now that he’s on this point, somehow tying up a book-review with Gujarat and Modi, let me tell Mishra that Nehru and his Congress party were the ones that set a precedent for things to stand at this pass as history of independent India testifies so well.

But this takes the cake!

Indian state has…..built nuclear armouries, and threatened catastrophic wars..

Again, (God help me!) what’s wrong in sprucing up our nation’s defences? Would he rather have the Islamic bomb (Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal) exploded on our heads first? And when has India threatened to declare a "catastrophic war?" Nice choice of words: "catastrophic wars!"

Makes me feel that India is about to declare the Third World War.