Nehru was in prison when he wrote these series of letters. His vision of history and of contemporary events had a sweep and genuineness that had nothing to do with pleasing powerful allies, or with wooing of voters. Nehru's views on secularism and Palestine -so passionately expressed in the early thirties- give lie to the Hindutva propaganda that these are "pseudo" positions cunningly devised with Muslim "vote bank" in mind.

Today, it is fashionable to hold that a nation's foreign policy is to be decided based on "self-interest" rather than on lofty principles and the like. As if there is a great contradiction between self-interest and principles. Indeed when principles are given the go by, and the game is played exclusively with an eye on each player's self-interest; it is obvious that the only interest that would be served is that of the most powerful among the players. It is definitely not in the self-interest of the poorer and weaker nations of the world to abandon principles. But this paradox is quite lost on the petty minds that fashion our foreign and trade policies, 50 years after independence.

On Palestine this is what he wrote on May 29, 1933, "The people inhabiting it are predominantly Muslim Arabs, and they demand freedom and unity with their fellow Arabs of Syria. But British policy has created a special minority problem here- that of the Jews- and the Jews side with the British and oppose the freedom of Palestine, as they fear that this would mean Arab rule".

About the Jews, spread and persecuted in Europe and other parts of the world, Nehru wrote, "And yet these amazing people not only survived all this, but managed to keep their racial and cultural characteristics, and prospered and produced a host of great men. Today they hold leading positions as scientists, statesmen, literary men, financiers, businessmen, and even the greatest socialists and communists have been Jews. Most of them, of course are far from prosperous; they crowd in the cities of Eastern Europe and, from time to time, suffer "pogroms" or massacres. These people without home or country, and especially the poor among them, have never ceased to dream of old Jerusalem, which appears to their imaginations greater and more magnificent than it ever was in fact. Zion, they call Jerusalem, a kind of Promised Land, and Zionism is this call of the past, which pulls them to Jerusalem and Palestine.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century this Zionist movement took gradual shape as a colonizing movement, and many Jews went to settle in Palestine... During the World War the British armies invaded Palestine and, as they were marching on Jerusalem, the British Government made a declaration in November 1917 called the Balfour Declaration. They declared that it was their intention to establish a 'Jewish National Home' in Palestine. This declaration was made to win the good will of international Jewry, and it was important from the money point of view... But there was one little drawback; one not unimportant fact seems to have been overlooked. Palestine was not a wilderness. Or an empty uninhabited place. It was already somebody else's home. So that this generous gesture of the British Government was really at the expense of the people who already lived in Palestine, and these people, including Arabs, non-Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and, in fact, everybody who was not a Jew, protested vigorously at the declaration."

Let us take another example of intellectual regress since the days of Nehru. Today's peddlers of "Globalization" would have us believe that inviting foreign investments is the "mantra" that can deliver the third world from poverty and backwardness. If indeed it is a fact that within the structures of capitalism and "free" trade, the nations of the third world can attain prosperity, then what was the raison detr? of the British Empire? Why did the Empire emerge as an instrument of economic exploitation, in the first place - if there was such a simple means for Britain to get and stay rich, without exploiting her colonies? Wasn't the East India Company the ultimate in "foreign investments"?

To quote what Nehru wrote on February 28, 1933, "...In this way, the American capitalists gained effective control of these smaller countries of the south and ran their banks, railways, and mines, and exploited them to their own advantage. Even in the larger countries of Latin America they had great influence because of their investments and money control. That is to say, the United States annexed the wealth, or a great part of it, of these countries. Now, this is worth noting, as it is a new kind of empire, the modern type of empire. It is invisible and economic, and exploits and dominates without any obvious outward signs. The South American republics are politically and internationally free and independent. On the map they are huge counties, and there is nothing to show that they are not free in any way. And yet most of them are dominated completely by the United States.

Most of us think of empires... like the British in India, and we imagine that if the British were not in actual political control of India, India would be free. But this type of empire is already passing away, and giving way to a more advanced and perfected type. This latest kind of empire does not annex even the land; it only annexes the wealth or the wealth producing elements in the country. By doing so it can exploit the country fully to its own advantage and can largely control it, and at the same time has to shoulder no responsibility for governing and repressing that country. In effect both the land and the people living there are dominated and largely controlled with the least amount of trouble."

I have read this book few years back.

Inspite of the greatness of Nehru's knowledge I have to mention the following contradictions. I would let the readers make their own judgement on these.

He abhored dynastic politics and vehemently supported democracy. Its ironic that his descendants practised dynastic politics, imposed emergency in 1975, created ripples in Punjab and were known for other notorious activities such as the one in Naxalbari. Height of irony is that this book, chapters within the book are letters written to his daughter Indira Gandhi who was primarily responsible for "institutionalising corruption" and "corrupting the institutions".

I find it surprising that he was a secular person based on his utterances in the book. Nehru's family is known to have strongest dislike for the Sikhs and Hindus. But this book doesn't portray that.

Nehru's love for socialism is projected in the first few pages when he talks about the origination of class with the invention of agriculture.

This is truly a great biography. Gopal writes with thoughtfulness and class. It tells about the joys and pains in Nehru's life in a original fashion. The insightfulness and portrayal of characters are just too good. The only single drawback I can think of is that there is not a very distinct clarity about events in Nehru's lifespan. But other than that, it's a good read for those interested in Indian politics.

India has changed a lot since this book was written in the mid 1940s. But for an informative, entertaining narrative of Indian history from 5000 BC - 1947 AD, read this book. Mostly completed during his long stays in the prison (while working with Gandhi to free India from British rule), this book is a brilliant masterpiece. Period.

The narration tneds to be sometimes personal and sometimes subjective. The writing is excellent when you think about the author who was a lawyer and a politician. I would recommend this book to anybody trying to "figure" out India or Indians or the Indian pysche.

Henry Ford should have read this book. He might not have said "History is bunk!" Nehru narrates the history of the world in this gripping story of India from ancient times of the Vedas to the on-going second world war at the time this book was written. Nehru's pragmatism brings home the relevance of history without ever letting the reader take refuge in it to blame the shortcomings of the present. Nehru's scholarly view of the world is a pleasure to read because they are always interspersed with his fascinating experiences of the real world of politics. How many men can write about why he declined an invitation "from Signor Mussolini" and discuss the Upanishads in the same book? Quoting extensively, from Plato to Emerson, Nehru comes across as a brilliant friend from India who has dropped in for a chat in your living room. Reading this book makes you wish for such scholars to succeed in the world of politics. It is especially relevant to us in America where the level of public discussion has reached an all time low with talk-radio and TV. Reading Nehru is a great exercise in understanding how not be boring when discussing esoteric subjects like the Persian civilization, or how the Greeks managed to hold on to thier tradition and at the same time embrace Christianity. Reading 'The Discovery Of India' is sure to make you a very wise person, and at the same time very interesting.

I had heard quite a bit about this book, but never had a chance to read it until very recently. I must say I was highly impressed by it. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of independent India was a thorough intellectual. His narration of history and knowledge about India is excellent. Since he was a nationalist, and also because this book was written while he was in prison, the author's intense dislike for the British do come out oftentimes in his narration of history. However the author himself is aware of it and acknowledges it. Though western educated, Jawaharlal Nehru had an intense love and hope for India. An extremely well read man, this book while giving a very good outline of India's history and past, also serves to provide the readers with Nehru's own philosophy of life and is thus autobiographical at times. This lends it an unique flavour and makes its reading even more enjoyable. While Nehru took intense pride in India's rich heritage, he always emphasised that we cannot live in the past. His dreams and hopes for India as a forward looking, modern and tolerant nation fostering peace and co operation in the world are pretty well brought out in the book. Intensely nationalistic, he was always careful that nationalism does not degenerate into the narrow variety, the type which inevitably does more harm than good. Whether one agrees with his views or not, one can't help admiring the man and developing a respect for him. Overall this book is in many ways a very enjoyable, informative and profound read. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to learn about India.

Very good book, very well structured. Gives a good view of the Indian dynasties of the 20th century. I read it in one breath.

This is a really good book. I liked it because the author is very honest. You find the exuberance of the language in the book. The chapter Animals in Prison talks about the co-existence of centipedes, spiders and other insects in jail with Nehru. He didn't kill any of them. Live and let live was his motto. I think it's a great one.

At best this book is the ramblings of a misinformed fanatic who looks at the world through a very small prison cell window. How can guys like this get published? Casually referring to John Wilkes Booth as "the crank who shot Lincoln", downplaying the very real, and very powerful role of the Japanese emperor three hundred years ago, and freely interjecting his own religious convictions whenever the chance appears (this is usually backed up with quotes from Marx or comments that reflect the books underlying theme - if "history" books are supposed to have a theme - which is loosely, "Why can't everyone be Muslim like me and Gandhi?")

The best thing you can do is ignore any book that tries to summarize over 2000 years of global history in less than 400 pages of someone's personal self justification.

nehro or ghandi were not muslims. If you want to assign a religion to them you MUST know your facts. I believe they susbcribe to the "truth" and "faith in goodness" from hinduism, islam and christianity.

A brilliant intellectual pursuit that gives a glimpse of Nehru's intellect, comprehension and culture. In the myriad of Western opinions of human progress, 'discoveries' and colonialism, Nehru's Glimpses stand out for its bold 'other view' of history as well as generous and magnanimous acknowledgement of the merits of every civilisation. To have the 'Glimpses' lost on one, as a mere rambling collection of letters would be tragic. To appreciate the 'Glimpses' one must understand the context in which it was written. It was not meant as an exercise to outline history for the world with the global audience in mind. It was merely a father's restricted dialogue with a daughter outside the prison walls with the intention of instilling pride in her culture and history. And maybe, as an inspiration to India's freedom fighters to stand up against the might of a hegemonic empire and its propaganda on history and civilisation. While the bleakness of his and the Colonial India's circumstances colour his opinions slightly, it does not blind him to historical realities.
That a book with such a narrow, domestic agenda subsequently appealed to the wider audience internationally is probably the finest testament of Nehru's brilliance.

I am impelled to write this review after reading the ill-educated notes from others about this book. Especially one that extols Nehru as "the one who got us freedom". Nothing could be more risibly further from the truth.

For those who are not aware of it, M.J. Akbar is the chief editor of one of the fringe news publications in India called The Asian Age (and I label it fringe based on its circulation numbers, not its journalism). I could hoist innumerable examples of thoughtful articles and research that have come from Mr. Akbar, but unfortunately and inexplicably this book is disappointing in its view of the Nehru dynasty. Perhaps a more fitting title for the book would have been "The making of India" because there is little that is engaging or enlightening about Nehru's life and personality.

A very different view of Nehru and his peccadilloes emerges from a couple of other factual books, often not touted as being the most "popular" because they do NOT pander to mass opinions -- "Nehru Dynasty" by K.N. Rao and "Nehru: A Tryst With Destiny" by Stanley Wolpert. It is clear to any close watcher of Indian politics around that era that Nehru's life (as well as the lives of his children/grandchildren) that Nehru was in fact much more of an irresponsible womanizer, a rich-dad's spoilt brat more interested in touring the world, and a politician of absolutely no original thinking. He was an eloquent speaker and a charismatic person by virtue of his fluent English, which unfortunately at the time went a long way in impressing people but his life is rife with political blunders. None of which is mentioned in this book.

There is also a known controversy around the appointment of Nehru as the first prime minister, because a unanimous decision post-independence proposed Sardar Vallabbhai Patel as the first PM of India. But Nehru's attention-deficient and wheedling ways got him the podium instead -- not his caliber. Such information would have best suited a book like this one, but is sadly remiss.

To cut to the chase, if you are interested in Nehru and his errant ways, this is not the book (the other two recommendations are). If you are interested in the events surrounding India's independence -- which was a lot more influenced by the repercussions of WW II on Britain than the efforts of Gandhi or particularly Nehru (who was basically useless) -- then this book will have some interesting tidbits for you.

This is not only a great book about Nehru, but gives an excellent explanation of historical events that shaped Nehru's life. The reasons behind the events are explained very well. A must read, if you are interested in Jawharlal Nehru.

A refreshing comprehensive biography by one of the formost scholars in India about one of India's great freedom fighters. If one wants to avoid orientalist lies such as Stanley Wolperts biography, then MJ Akbar's book is for you.

This biography fails to show the life of Mr. J.L. Nehru in a true perspective and is very judgemental. The author's views are shaped totally on the impressions that he had while writing a book on the contemporary of Mr Nehru, Mr M.A. Jinnah. This book just seems to be an extension of the earlier one on Mr Jinnah, which certainly is a brilliant book written on a person that we know so less about. It seems while reading the book that the author is time and again trying to justify what he had written in the earlier biography and thus ends up showing Nehru in a worse light more often than not. A biography cannot be written on the basis of views of the opponents of the biographee. What the author fails to realize is that two people could have their own thinking that conflicts with one another and yet be great people. A bad book for an author of well written books like biographies of M.A. Jinnah and Z.A. Bhutto, and A New History of India. For those who are interested in reading a biography on Nehru I would recommend the one by M.J. Akbar which is brilliantly written.

I admit that I knew precious little about India prior to reading this book, and even less about Nehru. Author Stanley Wolpert, UCLA professor of Indian history, presents well-researched information. Wolpert was given access to private files and letters that make his text gleam with insightful tidbits of Nehru's life. There is no doubt that Nehru's influence on India was profound during his life and since his death in 1964.

I began to think of Nehru as a "rascal" and this label for him continued to cross my mind as I read further. Although Nehru studied law at Cambridge, he had little interest in it. What did interest him was wandering around Europe, sitting in hot tubs at Harrogate's hydro, and acting, dressed as a seductive woman, in Victorian tableaux. Whenever he needed money to pursue his dalliances, he would ask his father for more. If Motilal would refuse, he would ask his mother to intercede.

Meanwhile, world events began to change India's attitude toward British colonialism. During World War I, over one million Indian troops fought for the British Empire, with over 100,000 killed. Not ones to show their gratitude, the British passed the Black Acts in 1915 that suspended Indian civil liberty and judicial due process. Nehru traveled through India with Gandhi to speak about Indian independence. Of the masses who greeted Gandhi, Nehru said that they were "dull...and uninteresting individually," but "produced a feeling of overwhelming pity and a sense of ever-impending tragedy."

By the late 1920's, Nehru was heavily entangled in Indian politics. Although he signed the Delhi manifesto, a compromise that gave India dominion status rather than full independence, he felt guilty about going against his inner voice. His fervent speeches about Indian independence led to years of incarceration. While in court in 1934 charged with sedition, Nehru stated his desire to "achieve the independence of India and to put an end to foreign domination." His approach to Indian independence became even more radical, moving further away from Gandhi's peaceful resistance. In public, however, Nehru did not admit his swing away from Gandhi's passivity. He recognized Gandhi's popularity as a guru. Gandhi, in turn, recognized Nehru's political support.

If ever a movie is made about Nehru, I am certain that the bulk of the story will be on his liaisons with Edwina, Claire Boothe Luce and others. Fortunately, author Stanley Wolpert does not dwell on this portion of Nehru's life in his book, but rather concentrates on Nehru's obvious impact upon India's government. Of course, a movie about Nehru's many years of incarceration would be quite boring. I found many parts of this book difficult to follow because Wolpert jumps around in time faster than a Quentin Tarantino movie. The absolute worst omission from the book is that there is no map of India or of south Asia. I am not the sort who carries a world map in my head, so when a book like this is chock-a-block full of references to geographical features and political strife, why is there is no map to which to refer? Other than this serious lack, the book is a thoughtful and well-researched focus on a great world leader.

I believe Prof. Stanley A. Wolpert has done intensive research on his book and has the concept of "free speech" in mind. Nehru an over-rated person has been defined truely in this book. This book is for the people who are free in their minds and for the people who can appriciate truth. I would recomend this book to all Indians who love their country in a true manner.