A glory has departed and the sun that warmed and brightened our lives has set, and we shiver in the 
cold and dark. Yet he would not have us feel this way. After all, that glory that we saw for all these 
years, that man with divine fire, changed us also--and such as we are, we have been molded by him 
during these years; and out of that divine fire many of us also took a small spark which 
strengthened and made us work to some extent on the lines that he fashioned. And so if we praise 
him, our words seem rather small, and if we praise him, to some extent we also praise ourselves. 
Great men and eminent men have monuments in bronze and marble set up for them, but this man of 
divine fire managed in his lifetime to become enshrined in millions and millions of hearts so that all 
of us became somewhat of the stuff that he was made of, though to an infinitely lesser degree. He 
spread out in this way all over India, not just in palaces, or in select places or in assemblies, but in 
every hamlet and hut of the lowly and those who suffer. He lives in the hearts of millions and he 
will live for immemorial ages. 

What, then, can we say about him except to feel humble on this occasion? To praise him we are not 
worthy--to praise him whom we could not follow adequately and sufficiently. It is almost doing him 
an injustice just to pass him by with words when he demanded work and labor and sacrifice from 
us; in a large measure he made this country, during the last thirty years or more, attain to heights of 
sacrifice which in that particular domain have never been equaled elsewhere. He succeeded in that. 
Yet ultimately things happened which no doubt made him suffer tremendously, though his tender 
face never lost its smile and he never spoke a harsh word to anyone. Yet, he must have suffered -- 
suffered for the failing of this generation whom he had trained, suffered because we went away 
from the path that he had shown us. And ultimately the hand of a child of his -- for he, after all, is as 
much a child of his as any other Indian--the hand of a child of his struck him down. 

Long ages afterwards history will judge of this period that we have passed through. It will judge of 
the successes and the failures -- we are too near it to be proper judges and to understand what has 
happened and what has not happened. All we know is that there was a glory and that it is no more; 
all we know is that for the moment there is darkness, not so dark certainly, because when we look 
into our hearts we still find the living flame which he lighted there. And if those living flames exist, 
there will not be darkness in this land, and we shall be able, with our effort, remembering him and 
following his path, to illumine this land again, small as we are, but still with the fire that he instilled 
into us. 
He was perhaps the greatest symbol of the India of the past, and may I say, of the India of the 
future, that we could have had. We stand on this perilous edge of the present, between that past and 
the future to be, and we face all manner of perils. And the greatest peril is sometimes the lack of 
faith which comes to us, the sense of frustration that comes to us, the sinking of the heart and of the 
spirit that comes to us when we see ideals go overboard, when we see the great things that we 
talked about somehow pass into empty words, and life taking a different course. Yet, I do believe 
that perhaps this period will pass soon enough. 

He has gone, and all over India there is a feeling of having been left desolate and forlorn. All of us 
sense that feeling, and I do not know when we shall be able to get rid of it. And yet together with 
that feeling there is also a feeling of proud thankfulness that it has been given to us of this 
generation to be associated with this mighty person. In ages to come, centuries and maybe millennia 
after us, people will think of this generation when this man of God trod on earth, and will think of 
us who, however small, could also follow his path and tread the holy ground where his feet had 
been.  

Let us be worthy of him. 

 
Jawaharlal Nehru  
February 2 1948 
 
Comment on the various techniques that make this an effective speech.

[What in the eulogy indicates that Nehru may have had a purpose or purposes
other than to commemorate Gandhi?]

Nehru uses apotheosis, coordinating conjunction and symbolism to convey and emphasise
Gandhi’s legacy and his influence on the Indian people. Other than commemorating
Gandhi, Nehru implicitly humiliates the Indian people for betraying Gandhi’s good deeds
by stating Gandhi’s assassination by his own race, and how the Indian people failed to
support his conquest for peace in the country.

Nehru uses apotheosis frequently to effectively convey Gandhi’s incomparable goodness

as if he has godly status. Most notably his last sentence “Let us be worthy of him”
suggests Gandhi’s superiority over the common people. This effectively makes the
audience feel guilty and insignificant as if the Indian people can only hope and beg for
Gandhi’s approval to be worthy to his cause for peace. Another example is Nehru’s
repetition of ‘divine fire’ in the starting paragraph. As the word, ‘divine’ suggest divinity and
transcendency, and ‘fire’ suggest purity and warmth that Gandhi resonates to the Indian
people. To the audience, this portrays not just his godly wisdom but his all-loving and
benevolent embrace - emphasising the tragedy that has occurred that day; an incarnation
of God has left the earth not a human. Furthermore, Nehru’s hyperbolic use of the power
of three on the last paragraph, stating “In ages to come, centuries and maybe millennia
after us,....” creates a long-lasting impression to the audience that Gandhi’s existence is a
moment in human history, not just an activist or martyr but the living embodiment of God’s
embrace toward the Indian people when India is at its most or one of the direst situation.
As Nehru reaches the climax of the power of three with the word ‘millennia’ it accentuates
Gandhi’s wisdom to be passed on through generations; referencing similarly to Jesus’s
crucifixion and the ultimate sacrifice to mankind. Despite Christianity not being integral
religion in the Indian culture, it shows the Indian people embracing westernisation and the
openness to new ideas not seen in a country so conservative about their own culture. This
ultimately led to Gandhi’s death as a Hindu extremist shot him, but this illustrates to the
audience that Gandhi’s death is the tipping point of India’s transition to a new era - which
is why he is loved by many of the newer generations at the time and he depicts new paths
for India to prosper.

Secondly, Nehru uses coordinating conjunctions to juxtapose ideas to emphasise a world

influenced by Gandhi versus one without his imminence. For example, Nehru states “....he
never spoke a harsh word to anyone. Yet, he must have suffered -- suffered for the failing
of this generation whom he had trained, suffered because we went away from the path
that he had shown us.” the juxtaposition between the first sentence and the next creates a
feeling of guilt and contemplation as the audience remembers Gandhi’s benevolence, but
as Nehru says ‘Yet’ creates a paraprosdokian effect where the audience is unexpectedly
revealed Gandhi’s hidden struggles. This puts emphasis on Gandhi’s deeds because we
as the spectators never know pain underneath the happiness and the sacrifices
underneath the love, so for Nehru to expose all of that explicitly, shocks the audience ever
more profoundly. In addition, Nehru accentuates this feeling of guilt and sorrow
furthermore by the repetition of ‘suffered’, extending the list of sufferable experience
Gandhi has gone through like putting salt to the audience’s wounds as their guilt and
sorrow deepens. Nehru also uses aposiopesis to segment his speech before he starts
listing Gandhi’s suffering, the short pause creates suspense, preparing the audience for
the sorrow to come. This emphasises the shock effect as the audience are given time to
contemplate before exposing to the truth. Speaking of contemplation, Nehru also uses a
rhetorical question to ask the audience “What, then, can we say about him except to feel
humble on this occasion?” this limits the audience’s response due to the inclusive
language and appeal to commonsense involved. This suggests Gandhi’s undoubtedly
goodwill that makes anyone love him instead of hating him. To the audience, it allows
them to contemplate their actions toward Gandhi, especially for perpetrators who resents
him because this rhetorical question makes them questions their judgment and feeling
toward Gandhi.

Thirdly, Nehru uses symbolism to provide the audience with the imagery of their emotions
and abstract thoughts which Gandhi represents. Nehru symbolises Gandhi with the notion
of past, present and future of India, for example, he states “He was perhaps the greatest
symbol of the India of the past, and may I say, of the India of the future, that we could have
had.” this accentuates Gandhi’s relevance in every generation as his ideologies signal to
every Indian to pursue peace. As the audience can see now that despite the era, war and
conflict rages on and it is important for people to not lose the sense of stability in pursuit of
their ambitions and aspirations. Nehru showed to the people of India that Gandhi
symbolises not just the present conflict but for many years to come and resembles
peaceful protest in pursuit for liberty to the people oppressed by colonialism all over the
world too. Another symbolism Nehru used is representing the unwavering resolve which
Gandhi has enshrined to many Indian people. For example, Nehru states “when we look
into our hearts we still find the living flame which he lighted there.” the emotive language
used emphasises on Gandhi’s influence to the people of India because despite his death,
his determination and resolve lives on in people’s hearts. Nehru provides a sense of
sanctity and calm to the audience as the audience is probably bewildered by tragedy, yet
this positive message brings hope to the people that Gandhi’s teachings are still imminent
inside of them. The phrase ‘living flame’ symbolises warmth, kinship and faith; the faith
that brings together people and a faith that peace and love should conquer hate and
conflict. To the audience, it keeps them on their toes and gives the Indian people a
purpose to seek for peace and freedom. Another purpose which Nehru wants to indicate is
the failure of the Indian people to protect Gandhi and his teaching - resorting in violence to
murder a man so paradoxical to violence. For example, Nehru states “And ultimately the
hand of a child of his -- for he, after all, is as much a child of his as any other Indian--the
hand of a child of his struck him down.” Nehru symbolises the Indian people to be
Gandhi’s child and that child betrayed him by murdering him. This suggests the
disappointment of the Indian people as they have conspired against someone who
embraces them as his own. Nehru implicitly reveals that Gandhi’s death was not just the
fault of the Hindu extremist but all of Indians. That all Indians have disappointed Gandhi’s
teachings by succumbing to negativity instead of positivity. This makes the audience feel
guilty and only beg Gandhi for his forgiveness.

In conclusion, Nehru uses mainly apotheosis, coordinating conjunction and symbolism to

effectively commemorate Gandhi’s legacy and the positive influence he has made to India.
Nehru reiterated the importance of Gandhi’s teachings and preserve the Indian people’s
affection for Gandhi. Nehru also enlightens the people of India to seek positivity and peace
after Gandhi death and help build a new India where Gandhi’s ideologies are preserved for
the prospect of a brighter future. However, Nehru also touches on the disappointment he
has when he sees the Indian people to have let a man like Gandhi die in the hands of such
violence, but also the disappointment that the Indian people have succumbed to negativity
instead of positivity (which Gandhi worked hard to bring light to) after his death.