This hyper-democratic tendency was in contrast to the reputation
Nehru was beginning to develop for being irritable, impatient and auto-
cratic – tendencies of Napoleonism or Caesarism that he had identified in
himself in his anonymous self-assessment for the Modern Reviewin 1937.
Politically at least, he honourably fought against this side of himself,
patiently and laboriously explaining and justifying his policies before
legislatures and electorates. Ironically, he might have used this tendency
to good measure more often, by allowing himself to be more assertive
within his party and government, staking his personal standing and
popularity against his colleagues’ obstructions.
Nehru was also under considerable pressure and working very long
hours, to the consternation of those close to him. He found their atten-
tions and concern somewhat annoying. ‘Everybody seems to be anxious to
look after me as if I was some kind of a cripple,’ he wrote to his sister
Vijayalakshmi in Moscow.^19 Despite the attentions of members of his
family – his daughter Indira was effectively living with him in Delhi
from 1947 onwards, while her husband Feroze ran Nehru’s paper, the
National Herald, in Lucknow – Nehru’s personal life in his period as prime
minister was one of relative isolation; to some extent this mirrored his
political life. Nehru does not appear to have found many people whose
social and intellectual company was genuinely fulfilling. Until their
departure in June 1948, Nehru found some comfort in the company of the
Mountbattens; thereafter, he availed of the opportunities provided by his
visits to Britain as prime minister to see ‘Dickie’ and Edwina, and
Edwina’s later role as a volunteer for the Red Cross in Asia enabled her
to make occasional visits to India. Edwina’s death in February 1960 was
strongly felt by Nehru.
As the socialists moved inexorably towards their exit from the
Congress, Nehru was able to recognise the dangers of his own potential
vulnerability and isolation. In August 1948, Nehru pleaded for under-
standing from his old friend Jayaprakash Narayan. ‘I cannot, by sheer force
of circumstance, do everything that I would like to do. We are all of us
in some measure prisoners of fate and circumstance. But I am as keen as
ever to go in a particular direction and carry the country with me and I do
hope that in doing so I have some help from you.’ Along with this plea,
he warned Narayan that any attempt at ‘premature leftism’ might lead
to a further move to the right, as, he claimed, had been the case in Europe
- he also directed the charge of premature leftism against the CPI, which
CONSOLIDATING THE STATE, c. 1947–55 183