Nehru & Obama

Nehru & Obama

During a recent visit to India, I picked up a 4 CD collection of Nehru’s speeches. I have been listening to them in my car for the past few days and have found them to give an interesting perspective into the person, his thinking and his beliefs.
While Obama’s fascination and regard for Mahatma Gandhi is well known, it occurred to me that there in fact may be more similarities between him and Nehru rather than between him and Gandhi. Much as it is attractive to do so, one shouldn’t force-fit non-existent similarities or point to zany ones (their last names have five letters each). However, there do appear to be multiple similarities, both in personality as well as in approach to public policy and governance.
For starters, both have a keen understanding of history and their beliefs seem to have been shaped by that understanding. Fantastically speaking, if all world leaders of the past hundred years were to get together at a university, Nehru could hold a class on history, with Obama being his teaching assistant. This understanding of history has, I believe, tempered their approaches, made their decision-making more deliberate and studied, and helped them look at issues from a slightly detached perspective.
Both are undeniably cerebral, their intellect being one of their primary strengths. Now intellect is not a necessary trait for public office (and we have ample evidence of that) and these two are perhaps among a small group of statesmen who could probably have cracked the SAT too (BHO may well have). While their intellect may help them in understanding nuanced perspectives of complex issues, it has also lent credibility to a common view about them being aloof, out of touch and not representative of their peoples.
Both Nehru and Obama are superb writers, and in addition to history professorship, writing could have been a complete alternate career for either of them. It is not just that they have written books, but that they value the language and its use much more than others in their position. Obama uses words carefully, and often underlines the importance of words and their symbolism. Nehru was a more beautiful writer, but importantly he too saw the power and the responsibility of language.
Their beliefs have been left-leaning although the degree may vary. Nehru was possibly a more overt socialist, Obama believes in some of those principles himself. It is possible that Nehru’s belief was colored by the times – the imperialist manifestation of capitalism, the sheer economic bankruptcy of his country and the scary class divide that he was inheriting in his young nation. Nonetheless, that became his defining belief, and while Obama displays a more watered down version of that belief, they are more similar than dissimilar in that regard.
Both men suffer from personal vanity, a trait that is probably essential for public leaders. However it is found in more than ample measure in both of them. It is doubtful that Nehru tolerated opposing opinion, and I worry that Obama sometimes displays very little of that tolerance. One must note here that Nehru, pseudonymously as Chanakya, wrote for the “Modern Review” and in one article commented that Nehru (himself) was getting too powerful and that “Is it not possible that Jawahar might fancy himself as a Caesar? He must be checked. We want no Caesars”. While some may applaud his self-critical analysis, others may simply point out that his own admission certifies the view that he was egoistic and intolerant of differing beliefs.
Obama and Nehru both aspire to be transformational leaders. Nehru played at a time where his efforts would organically be transformational. Obama has a choice but genuinely desires to make a big difference. Nehru was able to architect independent India based on his beliefs. He had few challengers. Obama has many, and appears to struggle to be a transformational president.
Both men have a sweeping yet nuanced understanding of multiple cultures and peoples. Nehru saw himself as “a Hindu by birth, a Muslim by culture and an Englishman by education”. Obama is sensitive to various cultures because of his multi-ethnic heritage, his foreign living and his cosmopolitan adult life. Like their keen understanding of history, this sensitivity to multiple cultures also enables them to see the subtlety of situations and to understand the inherent complexity of various perspectives before taking decisions.
Of course there are differences, many of them. As Lapierre and Collins wrote in Freedom at Midnight, “Sardar Patel grew up in a city of factories and industry, Nehru grew up where they grew flower and fruit”. His rich and happy upbringing made him a natural romantic. Obama struggled through his identity, had to hustle his way growing up and as some critics may say, got tutored in the Chicago style of hard politics. In that sense, he is seen as more street-smart and less naïve. Nehru could not have been as naïve as some armchair neo-intellectuals these days accuse him of being. These people enjoy the luxury of hindsight. They also enjoy the blissful ignorance of the challenges in moving a bankrupt, tired and populous nation forward. But it does appear that Nehru was more trusting than he should have been, and too idealistic in a world that was perhaps already getting cynical. On the other hand, Obama seems focused on accomplishing his goals, and will use the sensibilities and allowances of modern politics to his advantage in achieving these goals.
Nehru was loved universally and became an integrating force during his political life. Obama, despite his best efforts, has had a polarizing influence on his country (although a reassuringly integrative influence in Europe and other parts of the world). Many love him, yet quite a few dislike him strongly. He also operates at a time when the media is powerful and information is symmetric and democratic. That is equalizing in one sense and vulgar in another, leading to excesses of opinion, noise and unfair scrutiny. But in many ways Obama’s detailed critique is healthy, it keeps him in check. It is to Nehru’s credit that he relentlessly pursued public good in spite of being deified by almost everyone around him.
Obama, so far, appears to be a more devoted family man than Nehru ever was. Obviously Nehru operated in a historic time, when he had to physically talk to the Indian masses to be heard, and that could have put enormous strain on his personal capacity. Nonetheless, Obama focuses heavily on his role as a husband and as a father, and is often seen as a role model of a family man. Nehru achieved much else, but never that credential.
There are probably many more similarities and many more differences. I’m not arguing that these are the only two leaders who had any one of the above similarities, but taken collectively I find the two men to be remarkably similar in various ways. A final similarity, totally irrelevant to the context but inextricably germane to this note is that I adore both of them, and am hopelessly incapable of seeing too much wrong with either of them.
Obama, I am sure, has some understanding of Nehru’s role in Indian politics. I wonder however, how much he knows about Nehru as a personality, his beliefs, his style and approach, his strengths and failings. He may well be surprised at what he learns.