What do you think?
Rate this book
Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age
In this fascinating and meticulously researched book, bestselling historian Arthur Herman sheds new light on two of the most universally recognizable icons of the twentieth century, and reveals how their forty-year rivalry sealed the fate of India and the British Empire. They were born worlds apart: Winston Churchill to Britain's most glamorous aristocratic family, Mohandas Gandhi to a pious middle-class household in a provincial town in India. Yet Arthur Herman reveals how their lives and careers became intertwined as the twentieth century unfolded. Both men would go on to lead their nations through harrowing trials and two world wars--and become locked in a fierce contest of wills that would decide the fate of countries, continents, and ultimately an empire. Gandhi & Churchill reveals how both men were more alike than different, and yet became bitter enemies over the future of India, a land of 250 million people with 147 languages and dialects and 15 distinct religions--the jewel in the crown of Britain's overseas empire for 200 years. Over the course of a long career, Churchill would do whatever was necessary to ensure that India remain British--including a fateful redrawing of the entire map of the Middle East and even risking his alliance with the United States during World War Two. Mohandas Gandhi, by contrast, would dedicate his life to India's liberation, defy death and imprisonment, and create an entirely new kind of political movement: satyagraha, or civil disobedience. His campaigns of nonviolence in defiance of Churchill and the British, including his famous Salt March, would become the blueprint not only for the independence of India but for the civilrights movement in the U.S. and struggles for freedom across the world. Now master storyteller Arthur Herman cuts through the legends and myths about these two powerful, charismatic figures and reveals their flaws as well as their strengths. The result is a sweeping epic of empire and insurrection, war and political intrigue, with a fascinating supporting cast, including General Kitchener, Rabindranath Tagore, Franklin Roosevelt, Lord Mountbatten, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. It is also a brilliant narrative parable of two men whose great successes were always haunted by personal failure, and whose final moments of triumph were overshadowed by the loss of what they held most dear.
736 pages, Hardcover
First published May 9, 2008
238 people are currently reading
2696 people want to read
About the author
Arthur Herman
17 books310 followersArthur L. Herman (born 1956) is an American popular historian, currently serving as a senior fellow at Hudson Institute. He generally employs the Great Man perspective in his work, which is 19th Century historical methodology attributing human events and their outcomes to the singular efforts of great men that has been refined and qualified by such modern thinkers as Sidney Hook.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews
September 25, 2022
Arthur Herman's Gandhi and Churchill is an uneven effort to parallel the lives of the Indian independence leader and British Prime Minister. Dual biographies tend to be awkward frameworks for analysis, especially since Gandhi and Churchill only met once in passing; this approach often tends to reduce subjects to symbols of their respective causes. Such is the case here. To his credit, Herman is an engaging and fluent writer who does an admirable job making the complex whirl of British politics, Indian activism, military conflicts and protests cohesive and digestible even to lay readers. It's the biography aspect that lets the book down. Herman takes a debunking tone towards Gandhi, stressing his political shrewdness (or opportunism), his human failures (including racial prejudice towards Africans) and feuds with fellow nationalists like Nehru, Jinnah and Bose over his saintly qualities. This would be fair enough since Herman balances this critique with recognition of the Mahatma's courage and principles, except he scarcely seems able to say a bad word about Churchill. Sure, there's a word here and there about Churchill's racial views, his resistance to Home Rule and a brief passage on his callous response to the Bengal Famine of 1943, but it's mostly the Bulldog Winston gallantly holding the line against fascism and chaos, against the "half-naked fakir" whose unyielding principles repeatedly sabotage earnest British efforts at negotiating self-government. Perhaps this is inevitable from a Western historian; Churchill's sainted reputation has died hard in the US and UK, his battle against Hitler overshadowing the rest of his long, oft-checkered career. But it still results in a book that, though readable and well-organized, seems reluctant to face at least one of its subjects head-on - the result being a skewed, unreliable portrait.
August 13, 2011
History written as the acts of “Great Men” makes for fun reading, but inaccurate historiography. While the author is presumably from this school, these two erstwhile great men—Gandhi and Churchill—seem often wretched, delusional, dogmatic and odious. Their lives were intertwined with the fate of both India and Britain, but it is unclear who the hero is and who’s the villain at any time—massive blood on their hands. Churchill is a prejudiced imperialist; Gandhi a deluded idealist. Churchill callously allows millions of Indians to die of starvation during WWII; Gandhi’s intransigence leads to ethnic holocaust of Muslims and Hindus, etc. Surprises in every chapter. I discovered Churchill was more progressive and Gandhi more racist than I knew. This large book captures the interesting bits of both men’s biographies—Gandhi’s love of British-Victorian New Age fads, Churchill’s war-hero antics—without idealizing or exonerating either. Great men swept up by the larger forces that move history.
September 6, 2008
This book helped me understand Churchill more fully and in a way that more comprehensive tomes did not. It also filled a gap in my knowledge of Gandhi. Dual biographies don't always work. This one did because Gandhi and Churchill navigated in counterpoise.
By coincidence, I read Rushdie immediately after this and the knowledge I absorbed from Gandhi & Churchill really helped.
By coincidence, I read Rushdie immediately after this and the knowledge I absorbed from Gandhi & Churchill really helped.
July 4, 2013
It's a a decent book is what I can say. It gets a few things right but the problem is it leaves a lot of topics hanging in mid air. For example in one of the chapters, there was this sentence "Gandhi almost killed his son Harilal, with his experiments" or something along the same lines. It is a very offhand remark to make. Gandhi, in his autobiography, explains in detail this specific incident. He perceived the incident as a test of his morals/principles. (The doctors diagnose his son to be affected with flu/small pox (not sure as to which) and advice Gandhi to provide non-vegetarian food. Gandhi refuses to do so and the turmoil he goes through is described in his autobiography). To make such a remark, without narrating the events preceding and following it does not make sense to me. Such comments are scattered across the book. It paints an incorrect picture about the characters involved.
Apart from this major drawback, the book was otherwise a good read. This was my first experience of reading about Winston Churchill, so I was intrigued about that and felt that the book did a decent job in that area.
One of the predominant themes of the book was that the author portrays, both Churchill and Gandhi to be politically driven, as if that was their sole ambition throughout their life. I can't comment about Churchill, as this was my first book about him but I'm quite sure that Gandhi wasn't. He did not even think about the idea of an Independent India till probably 1906/1910.
For those readers who want to know about Gandhi, DO NOT start with this book. Read "My Experiments with Truth" before you start with any other book about him.
Apart from this major drawback, the book was otherwise a good read. This was my first experience of reading about Winston Churchill, so I was intrigued about that and felt that the book did a decent job in that area.
One of the predominant themes of the book was that the author portrays, both Churchill and Gandhi to be politically driven, as if that was their sole ambition throughout their life. I can't comment about Churchill, as this was my first book about him but I'm quite sure that Gandhi wasn't. He did not even think about the idea of an Independent India till probably 1906/1910.
For those readers who want to know about Gandhi, DO NOT start with this book. Read "My Experiments with Truth" before you start with any other book about him.
December 5, 2012
Great exercise in demythologizing, especially of Gandhi
It has been said of French president Clemenceau that he had one illusion, France, and one disillusion, mankind, including Frenchmen.
Arthur Herman, in his magisterial new dual biography, shows how the same could be said of his twin protagonists over India and Indians.
Churchill's illusion was that Britain could continue to hold on to the old British Raj, even after World War II and a bankrupt British treasury. His disillusion was rather a cynicism about Indian capacity for self-government, lumping Gandhi in with millions of other religious fakirs.
Gandhi's illusion was multiple, but basically of two parts. The second was that a medieval-age India, with 300 million people all picking up Gandhi's spinning wheel, was possible, was the best way for India to go, and was desired by most Indians. His second, more tragic illusion was that India without Muslim-Hindu partition was the only way to go, and that it could only be done on his terms.
Herman documents how Gandhi, not Churchill, not Viceroy Archibald Wavell, not Muhammad Ali Jinnah or anybody else, wrecked the last reasonable shot at an unpartioned India because it wasn't done his way.
Gandhi's illusion? That Indians wanted to follow his way of satyagraha, or "soul force," in its nonviolence, as well as to become peasant-based, rather than Nehru's vision of technology-driven socialism. Herman shows that British actions in Gandhi's years of the Raj were NOT driven by nonviolence but rather, the fear of violence that accompanied most of Gandhi's arrests, fasts from prison, etc.
In short, Gandhi comes off badly in this book, and deservedly so.
The mythical Gandhi of Ben Kingsley's acting and of previous bios of the Mahatma is just that -- a myth. Herman rightfully shows that Gandhi impeded India's independence (at the times he wasn't irrelevant).
Churchill, meanwhile, was Gandhi's tar baby. His 1930s "years in the wilderness" were all due to India, ultimately. His irrationality on the subject had some influence on some of his wilder military tactics proposals during World War II, as well.
But Herman doesn't stop there. He gets deeper into the personages of both, what drove them, and how neither could understand the other's drives. Churchill, who was a secularist his adult life, could never understand, let alone accept, Gandhi's religious revitalization. Gandhi, meanwhile, could understand Churchill more but would never lower himself from his hyper-idealist pinnacle enough to translate that into action.
If not for these two, India would have been independent earlier, and likely would have remained in the British Commonwealth.
An excellent book. And one of which this long review only scratches the surface.
And Herman, who helped his dad with galley proofs of a new translation of the Bhagavad-Gita when he was a child, has the academic and personal background to make this book excellent.
It has been said of French president Clemenceau that he had one illusion, France, and one disillusion, mankind, including Frenchmen.
Arthur Herman, in his magisterial new dual biography, shows how the same could be said of his twin protagonists over India and Indians.
Churchill's illusion was that Britain could continue to hold on to the old British Raj, even after World War II and a bankrupt British treasury. His disillusion was rather a cynicism about Indian capacity for self-government, lumping Gandhi in with millions of other religious fakirs.
Gandhi's illusion was multiple, but basically of two parts. The second was that a medieval-age India, with 300 million people all picking up Gandhi's spinning wheel, was possible, was the best way for India to go, and was desired by most Indians. His second, more tragic illusion was that India without Muslim-Hindu partition was the only way to go, and that it could only be done on his terms.
Herman documents how Gandhi, not Churchill, not Viceroy Archibald Wavell, not Muhammad Ali Jinnah or anybody else, wrecked the last reasonable shot at an unpartioned India because it wasn't done his way.
Gandhi's illusion? That Indians wanted to follow his way of satyagraha, or "soul force," in its nonviolence, as well as to become peasant-based, rather than Nehru's vision of technology-driven socialism. Herman shows that British actions in Gandhi's years of the Raj were NOT driven by nonviolence but rather, the fear of violence that accompanied most of Gandhi's arrests, fasts from prison, etc.
In short, Gandhi comes off badly in this book, and deservedly so.
The mythical Gandhi of Ben Kingsley's acting and of previous bios of the Mahatma is just that -- a myth. Herman rightfully shows that Gandhi impeded India's independence (at the times he wasn't irrelevant).
Churchill, meanwhile, was Gandhi's tar baby. His 1930s "years in the wilderness" were all due to India, ultimately. His irrationality on the subject had some influence on some of his wilder military tactics proposals during World War II, as well.
But Herman doesn't stop there. He gets deeper into the personages of both, what drove them, and how neither could understand the other's drives. Churchill, who was a secularist his adult life, could never understand, let alone accept, Gandhi's religious revitalization. Gandhi, meanwhile, could understand Churchill more but would never lower himself from his hyper-idealist pinnacle enough to translate that into action.
If not for these two, India would have been independent earlier, and likely would have remained in the British Commonwealth.
An excellent book. And one of which this long review only scratches the surface.
And Herman, who helped his dad with galley proofs of a new translation of the Bhagavad-Gita when he was a child, has the academic and personal background to make this book excellent.
July 14, 2009
(written for another purpose)
I am no historian, or even a scholar who is well-versed in the material that this book concerns itself with. Therefore, this review is strictly a layman’s review.
Popular historian Arthur Herman in this book scripts parallel biographies of MK Gandhi and Winston Churchill, two titans of the last century, whose influence is indicated by their places as the runner-up to Person of the Century (1900 - 2000) and the Person of the Half Century (1900 – 1950) respectively by Time.
The book has several remarkable merits. It is well-paced, gripping and at most points a page-turner. Its penchant for digging up unusual details and startling facts calls to mind that masterpiece of historical storytelling, Freedom at Midnight. The narrative and structure, from the point of view of timeline and two parallel storylines, is extremely commendable; one never loses track of time or of events, or sight of the big picture.
While the book looks to be solid on facts, its interpretations seem questionable, even simplistic, especially regarding Gandhi. To summarize the impressions one would glean from the book - both the characters, conventionally and in the public imagination considered unequivocal heroes, come off badly.
Churchill (admittedly about whom this is my first and perhaps last book) comes off as a person gifted with uncommon courage, great oratorical skill, and a generous dose of luck, but not possessed of an inclination toward out-of-the-box or even objective thought. Because his set of core beliefs – colonialism, democracy, capitalism with certain welfare systems, anti -communism and –totalitarianism – does not appear to be founded on rational thought, and his intellectual capacities seem ordinary, one is inclined to ascribe his unyielding adherence to these beliefs even in the face of extraordinary challenge more to an innate stubbornness and fundamentalism rather than an enlightened steadfastness. His megalomania and racism become apparent through understated facts and comments throughout the narrative; the shocking extent of his racism is brought out best by his comments about and reaction to the Bengal famine.
Gandhi comes off more as a shrewd strategist than a well-intentioned saint-politician. Herman’s approach strikes one as uncharitable toward Gandhi, and sometimes needlessly sensational; too much is made of middle-aged Gandhi’s racism against blacks and lower-class Indians (which is not all that startling given his historical and cultural context as the author would have us believe), his emphasis on manliness, and particularly his faddish experiments with diet. These experiments as well as his sexual experiments (upon which Herman should have elaborated) are, again, not incongruous with the spirit of the puritanical ascetic tradition of India. It is standard fare in Hindu thought that a complete subjugation of the passions is a prerequisite of, or coincident with, salvation. While Herman justifiably dismisses Gandhi’s ideas on industry, nonviolent protest (being an effective weapon in all cases – even extreme ones like Hitler), and society as impracticable or even downright silly, he misses or deemphasizes Gandhi’s essential nobleness: his peacebringing trip to remote Noakhali whilst in the thick of political turmoil, his ceaseless battle against untouchability, religious intolerance and indignity of labor, and his singular contribution toward making the struggle for independence a countrywide event and therefore promoting national identity, perhaps his greatest accomplishment. Herman’s account of the impact of Gandhi’s campaigns, though closer to the truth than several others that simplistically conclude that Gandhi brought independence to India, seems to err in the other direction: he judges the campaigns’ performances harshly since he compares their actual consequences against their promised consequences (independence in one year, and so on). A more measured account would conclude that the campaigns were, in fact, effective in the sense that successive campaigns swelled the numbers of protesters, intensified the drive for independence, mobilized world opinion, and tired the British. And through all this, they contributed hugely to India achieving its independence.
The overdone dramatic subtitle of the book – “The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age” – presages the style of narration. Throughout the book, one gets the niggling feeling that marketing wisdom was a partial reason for juxtaposing these very different lives with each other. Though some of the parallels he draws in Gandhi’s and Churchill’s lives, as well as the impact they had on each others’ situations, are enlightening, the constant exercise of establishing interconnections between the two giants quickly gets trying for the reader. The “ta-da” closings of several chapters don’t help.
For the reader who expected to be inspired by great lives, one common quality between the protagonists hits home: Gandhi and Churchill both faced crushing failures during their lives, the kind that would induce most men to exhaust and give up. But they didn’t, and their continuous resilience accounted largely for their places in history. The ultimate conclusion of the book is inexorable: Gandhi’s and Churchill’s ideas captivated their people for a time, but pragmatism, as always, won out, and history evaded them.
I am no historian, or even a scholar who is well-versed in the material that this book concerns itself with. Therefore, this review is strictly a layman’s review.
Popular historian Arthur Herman in this book scripts parallel biographies of MK Gandhi and Winston Churchill, two titans of the last century, whose influence is indicated by their places as the runner-up to Person of the Century (1900 - 2000) and the Person of the Half Century (1900 – 1950) respectively by Time.
The book has several remarkable merits. It is well-paced, gripping and at most points a page-turner. Its penchant for digging up unusual details and startling facts calls to mind that masterpiece of historical storytelling, Freedom at Midnight. The narrative and structure, from the point of view of timeline and two parallel storylines, is extremely commendable; one never loses track of time or of events, or sight of the big picture.
While the book looks to be solid on facts, its interpretations seem questionable, even simplistic, especially regarding Gandhi. To summarize the impressions one would glean from the book - both the characters, conventionally and in the public imagination considered unequivocal heroes, come off badly.
Churchill (admittedly about whom this is my first and perhaps last book) comes off as a person gifted with uncommon courage, great oratorical skill, and a generous dose of luck, but not possessed of an inclination toward out-of-the-box or even objective thought. Because his set of core beliefs – colonialism, democracy, capitalism with certain welfare systems, anti -communism and –totalitarianism – does not appear to be founded on rational thought, and his intellectual capacities seem ordinary, one is inclined to ascribe his unyielding adherence to these beliefs even in the face of extraordinary challenge more to an innate stubbornness and fundamentalism rather than an enlightened steadfastness. His megalomania and racism become apparent through understated facts and comments throughout the narrative; the shocking extent of his racism is brought out best by his comments about and reaction to the Bengal famine.
Gandhi comes off more as a shrewd strategist than a well-intentioned saint-politician. Herman’s approach strikes one as uncharitable toward Gandhi, and sometimes needlessly sensational; too much is made of middle-aged Gandhi’s racism against blacks and lower-class Indians (which is not all that startling given his historical and cultural context as the author would have us believe), his emphasis on manliness, and particularly his faddish experiments with diet. These experiments as well as his sexual experiments (upon which Herman should have elaborated) are, again, not incongruous with the spirit of the puritanical ascetic tradition of India. It is standard fare in Hindu thought that a complete subjugation of the passions is a prerequisite of, or coincident with, salvation. While Herman justifiably dismisses Gandhi’s ideas on industry, nonviolent protest (being an effective weapon in all cases – even extreme ones like Hitler), and society as impracticable or even downright silly, he misses or deemphasizes Gandhi’s essential nobleness: his peacebringing trip to remote Noakhali whilst in the thick of political turmoil, his ceaseless battle against untouchability, religious intolerance and indignity of labor, and his singular contribution toward making the struggle for independence a countrywide event and therefore promoting national identity, perhaps his greatest accomplishment. Herman’s account of the impact of Gandhi’s campaigns, though closer to the truth than several others that simplistically conclude that Gandhi brought independence to India, seems to err in the other direction: he judges the campaigns’ performances harshly since he compares their actual consequences against their promised consequences (independence in one year, and so on). A more measured account would conclude that the campaigns were, in fact, effective in the sense that successive campaigns swelled the numbers of protesters, intensified the drive for independence, mobilized world opinion, and tired the British. And through all this, they contributed hugely to India achieving its independence.
The overdone dramatic subtitle of the book – “The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age” – presages the style of narration. Throughout the book, one gets the niggling feeling that marketing wisdom was a partial reason for juxtaposing these very different lives with each other. Though some of the parallels he draws in Gandhi’s and Churchill’s lives, as well as the impact they had on each others’ situations, are enlightening, the constant exercise of establishing interconnections between the two giants quickly gets trying for the reader. The “ta-da” closings of several chapters don’t help.
For the reader who expected to be inspired by great lives, one common quality between the protagonists hits home: Gandhi and Churchill both faced crushing failures during their lives, the kind that would induce most men to exhaust and give up. But they didn’t, and their continuous resilience accounted largely for their places in history. The ultimate conclusion of the book is inexorable: Gandhi’s and Churchill’s ideas captivated their people for a time, but pragmatism, as always, won out, and history evaded them.
March 20, 2009
This is an epic book about two icons of history, esp. that of the 20th century. It links them in a way that I had not previously known as well as recounts their individual journeys compellingly and completely. Both emerge from the respectful treatment as more fully human - Gandhi revealed to be a leader whose followers often didn't and who had most of his protests turn out to be unsuccessful; Churchill revealed to have been bigoted, bullheaded and lucky (because he ascended to the Prime Ministership barely and at the right moment in history to deliver his country from its time of trial and then was cast aside virtually immediately thereafter); both revealed to be diffident husbands (and Gandhi a barely involved father). This being said, or perhaps because of it, I couldn't put it down - it is a great read. In addition, as adroitly as the author paints the journeys of the two protagonists, he also deftly places them in a compelling recounting of the historical era of which they were such influential members. This results in a fabulous book that is important, too. These were two lions of the age whose influence is still felt to this day and we know them better and appreciate them more fully because of this book.
July 4, 2018
In this masterfully written dual biography, Herman assumes the mantle of iconoclast as he covers not only the achievements, but also the many flaws and failures of two of the 20th century's most admired figures. By its end, the reader not only appreciates Gandhi & Churchill's accomplishments, but also comes to realize how even minor changes in their attitudes and actions may have saved many lives and lead to a better order on the sub-continent.
May 24, 2010
Gandhi and Churchill were among the most influential men of the 20th century, born within five years of each other 4000 miles apart. Though they met only once, their lives, values and goals would clash head-on several times. Arthur Herman writes a very readable book which includes not only the lives of these two Titans but incorporates also the history of the world during their lives – the two World Wars, the Depression and of course the fight for India’s independence.
The book clearly reveals what a challenge the struggle for independence in India was with India’s varying groups unable to compromise – the Hindu majority, the Muslim minority, the Untouchables. Then again there are differences in how groups think this Independence is to be achieved. Gandhi espouses his non violent satyagraha movement, others like SC Bose think only a military solution will work and still others want to drive the British out using terrorist activities. How are these varying groups to come together and make one nation out of India’s teeming population of 350 million people?
The author lays the blame for the violence and chaos of the movement at the door of the following – first of all the British Government which by delaying independence by more than 10 years allows hostilities between Hindus and Muslims to fester till they reach explosive levels; then leaders like Nehru and Jinnah whose personal ambitions are ahead of national unity; then Churchill who as Prime Minister refuses to accept that India’s independence is a foregone conclusion and cannot let go his dream of British Imperialism and finally Gandhi who for the sake of an “ unrealizable ideal” may have stood in the way of decisions which though not perfect would have prevented the violence. This is the author’s view; I can see many readers, Indians especially disagreeing with some or all of the arguments.
The last chapter of the book detailing how similar Churchill and Gandhi’s lives were is excellent. Both were men who at a very early age knew what they wanted. Churchill wanted to re-establish Britain’s old grandeur of Imperialism, Gandhi wanted India not only to be free but wanted India to be the shining example of a society based on Love, Cooperation and Unity. Their ways to achieve these goals were different – one was a man of war another an apostle of peace. But they were both equally passionate about their goals and single-minded in its achievement. Both were men who wanted to lead their people towards these goals. Both faced great success and crushing failure. Both enjoyed ardent adulation as well as extreme dislike. Both had their share of family problems with their children but both had very loving relationships with their wives. Churchill won the war for Britain but did not convince his people that British Imperialism was still possible and that it was good for Britain and those over whom they ruled. Gandhi got Indian Independence but could not convince his Hindu and Muslim countrymen to live with each other in peace. The world sees both of them as great achievers but I am not sure they thought of themselves that way at the end of their lives.
The book is large at 600 pages but at several points it is a page turner. It has a number of interesting details and never drags. I recommend reading it.
The book clearly reveals what a challenge the struggle for independence in India was with India’s varying groups unable to compromise – the Hindu majority, the Muslim minority, the Untouchables. Then again there are differences in how groups think this Independence is to be achieved. Gandhi espouses his non violent satyagraha movement, others like SC Bose think only a military solution will work and still others want to drive the British out using terrorist activities. How are these varying groups to come together and make one nation out of India’s teeming population of 350 million people?
The author lays the blame for the violence and chaos of the movement at the door of the following – first of all the British Government which by delaying independence by more than 10 years allows hostilities between Hindus and Muslims to fester till they reach explosive levels; then leaders like Nehru and Jinnah whose personal ambitions are ahead of national unity; then Churchill who as Prime Minister refuses to accept that India’s independence is a foregone conclusion and cannot let go his dream of British Imperialism and finally Gandhi who for the sake of an “ unrealizable ideal” may have stood in the way of decisions which though not perfect would have prevented the violence. This is the author’s view; I can see many readers, Indians especially disagreeing with some or all of the arguments.
The last chapter of the book detailing how similar Churchill and Gandhi’s lives were is excellent. Both were men who at a very early age knew what they wanted. Churchill wanted to re-establish Britain’s old grandeur of Imperialism, Gandhi wanted India not only to be free but wanted India to be the shining example of a society based on Love, Cooperation and Unity. Their ways to achieve these goals were different – one was a man of war another an apostle of peace. But they were both equally passionate about their goals and single-minded in its achievement. Both were men who wanted to lead their people towards these goals. Both faced great success and crushing failure. Both enjoyed ardent adulation as well as extreme dislike. Both had their share of family problems with their children but both had very loving relationships with their wives. Churchill won the war for Britain but did not convince his people that British Imperialism was still possible and that it was good for Britain and those over whom they ruled. Gandhi got Indian Independence but could not convince his Hindu and Muslim countrymen to live with each other in peace. The world sees both of them as great achievers but I am not sure they thought of themselves that way at the end of their lives.
The book is large at 600 pages but at several points it is a page turner. It has a number of interesting details and never drags. I recommend reading it.
April 25, 2021
‘I see no being which lives in the world without violence.’ -- MAHABHARATA
In 31 chapters does the author divide his book:
1. The Churchills and the Raj
2. Lord Randolph Takes Charge
3. Illusions of Power: The Gandhis, India, and British Rule
4. Awakening: Gandhi in London and South Africa, 1888–1895
5. Awakening II: Churchill in India, 1896–1899
6. Men at War, 1899–1900
7. Converging Paths, 1900–1906
8. Brief Encounter, 1906–1909
9. Break Point, 1909–1910
10. Parting of the Ways, 1911–1914
11. A Bridgehead Too Far, 1914–1915
12. Gandhi’s War, 1915–1918
13. Bloodshed, 1919–1920
14. Noncooperation, 1920–1922
15. Reversal of Fortunes, 1922–1929
16. Eve of Battle, 1929
17. Salt, 1930
18. Round Tables and Naked Fakirs, 1930–1931
19. Contra Mundum, 1931–1932
20. Last Ditch, 1932–1935
21. Against the Current, 1936–1938
22. Edge of Darkness, 1938–1939
23. Collision Course, 1939–1940
24. From Narvik to Bardoli, April 1940–December 1941
25. Debacle, 1941–1942
26. Quit India, 1942
27. Showdown, 1943
28. Triumph and Tragedy, 1943–1945
29. Walk Alone, 1945–1947
30.Death in the Garden, 1947–1948
31. Lion in Twilight, 1948–1965
What does the book speak of?
Two men, born five years and four thousand miles distant, meet once when both are unfamiliar. Then they go their separate ways and become two of the most venerated figures of the 20th century. From time to time they pass each other as they pass through history, each bent on his own course. Or else they find very different destinies.
One saves his country and ensures triumph in the greatest war the world has ever known. The other persuades a powerful nation into giving up its most impressive possession and founds the most populous democracy on earth.
That is the typical story of Gandhi and Churchill as portrayed by historians, biographers, and even filmmakers.
But it is not the whole story. Both men at the end of their lives got what they most wanted, but at the cost of what they most treasured.
Gandhi and Churchill both died as heroes to their fellow countrymen and as emblems to the rest of the world. But what they are celebrated for achieving is not what they had set out to do.
Churchill spent his life trying to reconstruct the regal sumptuousness that had been the benchmark of his father’s generation. He discovered that stateliness as a young officer in India, and in the pages of Gibbon and Macaulay he uncovered the reverie that underlay it: of a European civilization that could harmonize mankind’s contradictory impulses and create a world of development and “bright uplands.”
Churchill’s identity as a Briton was founded on that dream, just as he cherished the empire that went with it.
When Churchill was young, the dream had been shared by others. Then it gradually evaporated, first among intellectuals, then among politicians, and lastly among the British public. Among everyone, that is, except Churchill, who nurtured it and kept it alive during years of aggravation and letdown.
He used it to motivate his nation to victory in World War II, but later it lost its value to others if not to him. Britons preferred to remain human beings rather than become heroes. To his grief Churchill was left with the fragments of his broken dream, including the dream of the Raj in India.
Gandhi too lived a dream. He had conceived that dream in London as a law student: of India as the spiritual home of mankind, of an ancient Hindu civilization that could overcome mankind’s conflicting impulses and create a world of spiritual harmony and growth, of ahimsa and Satyagraha or soul force.
That dream too sustained him through years of aggravation and failure. He used it to inspire his nation to reach out for freedom from Britain and for independence.
Then, when the goal was in sight, his vision lost its value to others if not to him. Gandhi too was left with a dream’s busted pieces, while India dissolved into bedlam and hostility.
Gandhi’s death did more to end the violence than anything he had done when he was alive. But the disaster that engulfed post-independence India did not come to a stop after 1948.
The Raj was over and India was free, but it was no longer the India he—or Churchill—would identify. It had become two countries, and then ultimately three: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
More years of carnage and fighting lay ahead.
Under Nehru’s catastrophic economic policies, India’s deficiency sustained. Only years of retrenchment, and a trend of thinking far different from Gandhi’s notion of a nation of charkhas and self-sufficient villages, would put India on the path to becoming a steady, flourishing nation.
Meanwhile military coups and the rise of anti-Western Islamic fanaticism would intersperse the sad history of Pakistan.
It would fight two more vicious wars with its larger rival for control of Kashmir. At one point in 1999 Pakistan and India even approached a nuclear showdown. Later, thanks to al-Qaeda, the old Northwest Frontier, or Waziristan, proved to be as precarious and brutal a place as it was when Churchill first served there more than a century ago.
All this may have fulfilled Churchill’s nastiest forecasts of what would happen if the British left India. But would he have had any satisfaction at being proven right? His dream had been shattered, too, would it not?
Despite his best efforts, Churchill could not reinstate Britain’s smugness and poise in the world any more than Gandhi was able to build upon India’s pre-British roots. And in outstanding ways, identities have been reversed.
Today’s self-governing, modernizing, globalizing Indians seem more like Americans, Australians, and the other “English-speaking peoples” than Churchill could ever have imagined.
Both men lived their late Victorian creeds to the hilt. They saw the political arena as the place where their moral visions could be realized and their personal courage put to the test.
Both believed that by sheer force of will and example they could redirect the course of events in India and in the world.
The experience of defeat only seemed to intensify their drive and ambition. Ultimately, both men convinced themselves that their lives would have meaning only if they could secure the support of the masses for their dreams, even if the elites of their societies, Britain and India, remained suspicious and resentful, even scornful.
And to a powerful degree, they succeeded in securing that support. But both men also failed to realize that sheer will alone could not change how others saw the world and reacted to it.
Millions would rally to both their causes; both men would earn the respect and admiration, even adulation of a generation of Britons and Indians, respectively.
Each would see an essential part of their vision triumph. Both earned the permanent gratitude of their nations, as a result.
But at the end of the day those millions rallied to Gandhi and Churchill for their own reasons, as had their own closest followers. Few if any were willing to be what Churchill or Gandhi wanted them to be. Britons wanted to win the war against Hitler and Japan, but not in order to become an imperial race again.
Indians wanted independence, but not in order to transcend ancient rivalries and modern national identities. In the end everyone remained true to themselves as ordinary human beings, while Gandhi’s and Churchill’s rivals and followers (Nehru, Jinnah, and Patel on the one side, Attlee, Mountbatten, and Eden on the other) looked ahead to their own political futures.
In short, the world refused to be reshaped in either Churchill’s or Gandhi’s image. It was an outcome that at first bewildered, then enraged, and finally overwhelmed them both.
That was their tragedy, to set beside their triumph. The world remained obdurate in the face of their personal crusades to change it.
History stayed on its steady oblivious course, despite their efforts to propel it toward horizons where it preferred not to go: in Gandhi’s case, to a world without violence or exploitation, in Churchill’s, to a British Empire blossoming into a robust union of English-speaking peoples.
Still, both men had left an everlasting mark on their age and a lasting legacy for coming generations. They had fought each other for the sake not only of an empire but of the future of humanity.
In their 40-year contention, both men tasted splendid victory and degrading trounce. They inspired millions of devoted followers and alienated millions more.
Taken together, their story is a moving compliment to the power of human beings to shape their own destiny, and a warning of the dangers of self-delusion and pride.
Their story is the great untold parable of the twentieth century.
Though largely a eulogy, often placed far away from actual historical investigation, this is a fair-enough book.
Geab a copy if you choose.
In 31 chapters does the author divide his book:
1. The Churchills and the Raj
2. Lord Randolph Takes Charge
3. Illusions of Power: The Gandhis, India, and British Rule
4. Awakening: Gandhi in London and South Africa, 1888–1895
5. Awakening II: Churchill in India, 1896–1899
6. Men at War, 1899–1900
7. Converging Paths, 1900–1906
8. Brief Encounter, 1906–1909
9. Break Point, 1909–1910
10. Parting of the Ways, 1911–1914
11. A Bridgehead Too Far, 1914–1915
12. Gandhi’s War, 1915–1918
13. Bloodshed, 1919–1920
14. Noncooperation, 1920–1922
15. Reversal of Fortunes, 1922–1929
16. Eve of Battle, 1929
17. Salt, 1930
18. Round Tables and Naked Fakirs, 1930–1931
19. Contra Mundum, 1931–1932
20. Last Ditch, 1932–1935
21. Against the Current, 1936–1938
22. Edge of Darkness, 1938–1939
23. Collision Course, 1939–1940
24. From Narvik to Bardoli, April 1940–December 1941
25. Debacle, 1941–1942
26. Quit India, 1942
27. Showdown, 1943
28. Triumph and Tragedy, 1943–1945
29. Walk Alone, 1945–1947
30.Death in the Garden, 1947–1948
31. Lion in Twilight, 1948–1965
What does the book speak of?
Two men, born five years and four thousand miles distant, meet once when both are unfamiliar. Then they go their separate ways and become two of the most venerated figures of the 20th century. From time to time they pass each other as they pass through history, each bent on his own course. Or else they find very different destinies.
One saves his country and ensures triumph in the greatest war the world has ever known. The other persuades a powerful nation into giving up its most impressive possession and founds the most populous democracy on earth.
That is the typical story of Gandhi and Churchill as portrayed by historians, biographers, and even filmmakers.
But it is not the whole story. Both men at the end of their lives got what they most wanted, but at the cost of what they most treasured.
Gandhi and Churchill both died as heroes to their fellow countrymen and as emblems to the rest of the world. But what they are celebrated for achieving is not what they had set out to do.
Churchill spent his life trying to reconstruct the regal sumptuousness that had been the benchmark of his father’s generation. He discovered that stateliness as a young officer in India, and in the pages of Gibbon and Macaulay he uncovered the reverie that underlay it: of a European civilization that could harmonize mankind’s contradictory impulses and create a world of development and “bright uplands.”
Churchill’s identity as a Briton was founded on that dream, just as he cherished the empire that went with it.
When Churchill was young, the dream had been shared by others. Then it gradually evaporated, first among intellectuals, then among politicians, and lastly among the British public. Among everyone, that is, except Churchill, who nurtured it and kept it alive during years of aggravation and letdown.
He used it to motivate his nation to victory in World War II, but later it lost its value to others if not to him. Britons preferred to remain human beings rather than become heroes. To his grief Churchill was left with the fragments of his broken dream, including the dream of the Raj in India.
Gandhi too lived a dream. He had conceived that dream in London as a law student: of India as the spiritual home of mankind, of an ancient Hindu civilization that could overcome mankind’s conflicting impulses and create a world of spiritual harmony and growth, of ahimsa and Satyagraha or soul force.
That dream too sustained him through years of aggravation and failure. He used it to inspire his nation to reach out for freedom from Britain and for independence.
Then, when the goal was in sight, his vision lost its value to others if not to him. Gandhi too was left with a dream’s busted pieces, while India dissolved into bedlam and hostility.
Gandhi’s death did more to end the violence than anything he had done when he was alive. But the disaster that engulfed post-independence India did not come to a stop after 1948.
The Raj was over and India was free, but it was no longer the India he—or Churchill—would identify. It had become two countries, and then ultimately three: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
More years of carnage and fighting lay ahead.
Under Nehru’s catastrophic economic policies, India’s deficiency sustained. Only years of retrenchment, and a trend of thinking far different from Gandhi’s notion of a nation of charkhas and self-sufficient villages, would put India on the path to becoming a steady, flourishing nation.
Meanwhile military coups and the rise of anti-Western Islamic fanaticism would intersperse the sad history of Pakistan.
It would fight two more vicious wars with its larger rival for control of Kashmir. At one point in 1999 Pakistan and India even approached a nuclear showdown. Later, thanks to al-Qaeda, the old Northwest Frontier, or Waziristan, proved to be as precarious and brutal a place as it was when Churchill first served there more than a century ago.
All this may have fulfilled Churchill’s nastiest forecasts of what would happen if the British left India. But would he have had any satisfaction at being proven right? His dream had been shattered, too, would it not?
Despite his best efforts, Churchill could not reinstate Britain’s smugness and poise in the world any more than Gandhi was able to build upon India’s pre-British roots. And in outstanding ways, identities have been reversed.
Today’s self-governing, modernizing, globalizing Indians seem more like Americans, Australians, and the other “English-speaking peoples” than Churchill could ever have imagined.
Both men lived their late Victorian creeds to the hilt. They saw the political arena as the place where their moral visions could be realized and their personal courage put to the test.
Both believed that by sheer force of will and example they could redirect the course of events in India and in the world.
The experience of defeat only seemed to intensify their drive and ambition. Ultimately, both men convinced themselves that their lives would have meaning only if they could secure the support of the masses for their dreams, even if the elites of their societies, Britain and India, remained suspicious and resentful, even scornful.
And to a powerful degree, they succeeded in securing that support. But both men also failed to realize that sheer will alone could not change how others saw the world and reacted to it.
Millions would rally to both their causes; both men would earn the respect and admiration, even adulation of a generation of Britons and Indians, respectively.
Each would see an essential part of their vision triumph. Both earned the permanent gratitude of their nations, as a result.
But at the end of the day those millions rallied to Gandhi and Churchill for their own reasons, as had their own closest followers. Few if any were willing to be what Churchill or Gandhi wanted them to be. Britons wanted to win the war against Hitler and Japan, but not in order to become an imperial race again.
Indians wanted independence, but not in order to transcend ancient rivalries and modern national identities. In the end everyone remained true to themselves as ordinary human beings, while Gandhi’s and Churchill’s rivals and followers (Nehru, Jinnah, and Patel on the one side, Attlee, Mountbatten, and Eden on the other) looked ahead to their own political futures.
In short, the world refused to be reshaped in either Churchill’s or Gandhi’s image. It was an outcome that at first bewildered, then enraged, and finally overwhelmed them both.
That was their tragedy, to set beside their triumph. The world remained obdurate in the face of their personal crusades to change it.
History stayed on its steady oblivious course, despite their efforts to propel it toward horizons where it preferred not to go: in Gandhi’s case, to a world without violence or exploitation, in Churchill’s, to a British Empire blossoming into a robust union of English-speaking peoples.
Still, both men had left an everlasting mark on their age and a lasting legacy for coming generations. They had fought each other for the sake not only of an empire but of the future of humanity.
In their 40-year contention, both men tasted splendid victory and degrading trounce. They inspired millions of devoted followers and alienated millions more.
Taken together, their story is a moving compliment to the power of human beings to shape their own destiny, and a warning of the dangers of self-delusion and pride.
Their story is the great untold parable of the twentieth century.
Though largely a eulogy, often placed far away from actual historical investigation, this is a fair-enough book.
Geab a copy if you choose.
June 3, 2016
"Gandhi and Churchill" by Arthur Herman is a fine dual biography of Mohandas Gandhi and Winston Churchill. This book is also an historical overview of the decline of the British Empire and the rise of Indian independence. While these two historical processes were inevitable and transcended any particular individual, it's fair to say that Gandhi and Churchill were the human "faces" of these two developments. And it's also fair to say that each man tried to impose, at times successfully and at other times unsuccessfully, his own vision on these processes.
The dual biography "template" works - for the most part - in this case. By emphasizing their relationship and comparing/contrasting their similarities and differences, Herman brings to light some interesting aspects of each man's life. For Herman these men were dueling partners in the midst of great historical events. Their paths and goals wove in and out of each other's lives and, at times, they bumped and collided.
While this dual biography "template" approach reveals interesting aspects of each man's life, it also conceals other aspects and occasionally feels a little forced. It's fair to say that fighting Churchill was not the sole focus of Gandhi's life nor was battling Gandhi the sole focus of Churchill's life.
Gandhi's main goal included, but, importantly, transcended India's political independence. It was the promotion of the soul-force, truth, religious pluralism, and nonviolence. Churchill's main goal in life, whether it was dealing with Roosevelt, Stalin, or Gandhi, was preserving the British Empire. Certainly maintaining control of India - the Empire's Crown Jewel - was part of that goal - but not the entire goal.
Still Herman has produced two good biographies here of two of the most important and interesting figures of the 20th Century. And he pulls no punches in showing each man's flaws and failures.
All in all, this is a fine book which I enjoyed reading and recommend to anyone interested in 20th Century history.
If someone wants to read a fuller biography of Churchill, I recommend William Manchester's (three-volume) "The Last Lion."
Note: I listened to the Recorded Books Unabridged Audiobook (Release Date:10-25-08).
The dual biography "template" works - for the most part - in this case. By emphasizing their relationship and comparing/contrasting their similarities and differences, Herman brings to light some interesting aspects of each man's life. For Herman these men were dueling partners in the midst of great historical events. Their paths and goals wove in and out of each other's lives and, at times, they bumped and collided.
While this dual biography "template" approach reveals interesting aspects of each man's life, it also conceals other aspects and occasionally feels a little forced. It's fair to say that fighting Churchill was not the sole focus of Gandhi's life nor was battling Gandhi the sole focus of Churchill's life.
Gandhi's main goal included, but, importantly, transcended India's political independence. It was the promotion of the soul-force, truth, religious pluralism, and nonviolence. Churchill's main goal in life, whether it was dealing with Roosevelt, Stalin, or Gandhi, was preserving the British Empire. Certainly maintaining control of India - the Empire's Crown Jewel - was part of that goal - but not the entire goal.
Still Herman has produced two good biographies here of two of the most important and interesting figures of the 20th Century. And he pulls no punches in showing each man's flaws and failures.
All in all, this is a fine book which I enjoyed reading and recommend to anyone interested in 20th Century history.
If someone wants to read a fuller biography of Churchill, I recommend William Manchester's (three-volume) "The Last Lion."
Note: I listened to the Recorded Books Unabridged Audiobook (Release Date:10-25-08).
July 31, 2019
This is yet another one of those books about to historic figures who might be part of the same story but spent hardly any time looking each other in the eye. In the case of Gandhi and Churchill they met in person wants in about 1905 when Gandhi was a young attorney dressed up like an English man coming to London from South Africa to write the wrongs of those times.
The young guy and he was a racist. His problems in South Africa arose because he was annoyed to be treated like black people. He believed in the color line between white and black and he simply wanted to be treated as a person on the white side of the line. Eventually he came to a place where he was trying to improve the lives of the untouchables in India. But he was definitely a pretty complicated guy.
I definitely learned some things about both Gandhi and Churchill that I hadn’t known before. Churchill was definitely an imperialist. He definitely thought Britain was making life better for many of the people in their colonies who were not competent to manage their own countries. Gandhi definitely thought the British were bad guys. The book examines both of them as people coming from the Victorian era. Both had problems living their lives in the post Victorian age.
As often happens with this kind of book, there is a lot of individual history for our two main characters that is independent of each other. And there are plenty of occasions where the author seems to be stretching it a bit to suggest some human similarities between the two.
The young guy and he was a racist. His problems in South Africa arose because he was annoyed to be treated like black people. He believed in the color line between white and black and he simply wanted to be treated as a person on the white side of the line. Eventually he came to a place where he was trying to improve the lives of the untouchables in India. But he was definitely a pretty complicated guy.
I definitely learned some things about both Gandhi and Churchill that I hadn’t known before. Churchill was definitely an imperialist. He definitely thought Britain was making life better for many of the people in their colonies who were not competent to manage their own countries. Gandhi definitely thought the British were bad guys. The book examines both of them as people coming from the Victorian era. Both had problems living their lives in the post Victorian age.
As often happens with this kind of book, there is a lot of individual history for our two main characters that is independent of each other. And there are plenty of occasions where the author seems to be stretching it a bit to suggest some human similarities between the two.
March 2, 2012
One might expect that a book this long would be fairly comprehensive. While observing that making the book any longer might have been impractical if the author wanted anyone to read it, my main fault with the book was that it could do no more in most cases than summarize the lives of these two giants of history. But I am now motivated to read more about and by the two men.
This was virtually my first exposure to either man, and my views on both certainly changed. While appearing to have done the best they could and while being motivated by what they felt were good intentions, it seems clear both men were much more imperfect than our modern opinions of them. Churchill appears to have been a hot-headed warmonger who cared but little for the lives of his countrymen, let alone Indians or any non-white. Gandhi, although continually espousing non-violence, accomplished little in his lifetime by it. Rather, it was specifically the threat of the violence that would ensue if Gandhi died that prompted the British to listen to him when he was fasting. Both men seemed to have enjoyed as much failure as success in their lives.
Of much interest to me was the general history of the British Raj and its influence on India then as well as India and much of the Middle East today. To me it is a testament to the wisdom of avoiding the temptations of empire, and a call to the United States to change its course lest it bring upon itself the same fate as Britain.
This was virtually my first exposure to either man, and my views on both certainly changed. While appearing to have done the best they could and while being motivated by what they felt were good intentions, it seems clear both men were much more imperfect than our modern opinions of them. Churchill appears to have been a hot-headed warmonger who cared but little for the lives of his countrymen, let alone Indians or any non-white. Gandhi, although continually espousing non-violence, accomplished little in his lifetime by it. Rather, it was specifically the threat of the violence that would ensue if Gandhi died that prompted the British to listen to him when he was fasting. Both men seemed to have enjoyed as much failure as success in their lives.
Of much interest to me was the general history of the British Raj and its influence on India then as well as India and much of the Middle East today. To me it is a testament to the wisdom of avoiding the temptations of empire, and a call to the United States to change its course lest it bring upon itself the same fate as Britain.
October 12, 2017
This is a 600 page mouthful of historical clashes and as the title suggests, the downfall of the British Raj. These were the 2 most inspiring leaders of our time but they opposed each other and differed greatly in their vision, especially control of India.
Subtle, understated facts about Churchill: the only British politcian of his time to immediately detect that Hitler was sinister, took a keen interest in racial science (he passed a bill for involuntary sterlization of the mentally ill - he didn't believe the mentally ill should have the right to procreate), father suffered from depression, philandering mother loved younger men and his son was a drunk.
Subtle, understated facts about Gandhi: always rigorously imposed his sanctimonious values on his wife and children, considered Tolstoy to be a significant influence on his life - he even had the opportunity to meet him once, wanted Hindus (including the untouchable caste) and Muslims to live harmoniously, but did not allow his son to marry a Hindu from a lower caste and was furious with his eldest son's conversion to Islam, studied law in England, but did not want his own sons to be trapped by the "shackles" of a European education,so they went through life without any education at all.
Subtle, understated facts about Churchill: the only British politcian of his time to immediately detect that Hitler was sinister, took a keen interest in racial science (he passed a bill for involuntary sterlization of the mentally ill - he didn't believe the mentally ill should have the right to procreate), father suffered from depression, philandering mother loved younger men and his son was a drunk.
Subtle, understated facts about Gandhi: always rigorously imposed his sanctimonious values on his wife and children, considered Tolstoy to be a significant influence on his life - he even had the opportunity to meet him once, wanted Hindus (including the untouchable caste) and Muslims to live harmoniously, but did not allow his son to marry a Hindu from a lower caste and was furious with his eldest son's conversion to Islam, studied law in England, but did not want his own sons to be trapped by the "shackles" of a European education,so they went through life without any education at all.
December 18, 2009
Duel biography of Churchill and Gandhi putting special emphisis on the fight for Indian independence. Shows Churchill’s strength and weakness to be the same: steadfast resolve and issues as black and white only. Compares to Gandhi’s eccentricities and self examination. In the conflict each misjudged the other, missed opportunities to find solutions that could have prevented disaster, and became icons in their country without accomplishing their true goals. Churchill’s goal of reaffirming and progressing English imperialism compares to Gandhi’s of establishing an Indian nation that is both built on and the center of the world’s new moral high ground.
December 12, 2017
I loved this book, and I learned a lot about both men and the times in both countries (and beyond). The narrator was quite good, and this was an excellent commute listen - and also kept me company during a part of my shoulder recovery.
February 12, 2018
This well-researched book provides a balanced view of two historical giants, Gandhi and Churchill, along with context of the worlds they inhabited and impacted. Neither man comes across solely as a hero - the book recounts every misstep as well as the Victorian mindsets that eventually made both men out of sync with most of the rest of the world.
Churchill made disastrous mistakes during his long career and demonstrated an appalling lack of concern for lives other than British ones, causing millions of deaths, and betraying and condemning millions more to oppression. He is fortunate that his talent for speech-making and his ability to rally the British during World War II are what most people remember about him today, not his belief in the white man's burden. Gandhi is known for propelling India toward independence, but not his disappointment at failing to bring about his moral vision for the country. This book provides the research for a more comprehensive examination of both men and their motivations.
Churchill made disastrous mistakes during his long career and demonstrated an appalling lack of concern for lives other than British ones, causing millions of deaths, and betraying and condemning millions more to oppression. He is fortunate that his talent for speech-making and his ability to rally the British during World War II are what most people remember about him today, not his belief in the white man's burden. Gandhi is known for propelling India toward independence, but not his disappointment at failing to bring about his moral vision for the country. This book provides the research for a more comprehensive examination of both men and their motivations.
August 3, 2024
Arthur Herman tells, in consistently fluid and even-handed fashion, the story of the end of the Victorian age by way of these two resolutely Victorian specimens. If I gained one thing from this reading—and I believe I gained many—it was a crystallized understanding of the Victorian consciousness, and the way racial prejudice drove imperialism.
The Victorian age was not illiberal—in many ways it was far more liberal than our time. Churchill was a liberal, and yet, he was an adamant proponent of the Raj. Why? Well, for many reasons, many of which were probably hidden (perhaps willfully) below his immediate consciousness, such as his desire to defend the interests of his late father. Yet a fair understanding of Churchill, such as Herman provides here, also must note that his beliefs about race led him to believe that it was the “white man’s burden” to provide stability for the “essentially unstable” inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent. Racial prejudice of this kind was so prevalent in Victorian times that even the intuitively egalitarian Gandhi, at least in the first few decades of his life, held similar prejudices against those other races. His decades-long civil rights campaign in South Africa was that Indians deserved to be treated on par with the ruling English—as opposed to other races. This is no defense or excuse for false beliefs; surely one important test of great persons is their ability to rise above the ethos of their age where necessary. However, the fact that neither of these men adequately did so is not evidence that they should not be revered for their achievements.
Herman is not here to “cancel” these figures or tell their “terrible, deep-dark secrets.” His approach is simply thorough, which inevitably has a humanizing effect. On the other hand, while there is no hagiography to be had here, the way these two men are portrayed still left me awe-struck by the sheer force of will that they maintained through repeated setbacks. As Herman notes, while neither succeeded in his own eyes, the careers of both served mankind—despite their glaring flaws and narrowness. They were men of principle and character, and therefore, they were inevitably narrow. It seems that their narrowness made them arrows, flying faster and farther than others who were “carried by every wind of doctrine.” Of course, I think most of would agree that those principles were not always sure of the mark.
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in these looming historical figures as well as the evening of the Victorian age. It lives up to its subtitle.
The Victorian age was not illiberal—in many ways it was far more liberal than our time. Churchill was a liberal, and yet, he was an adamant proponent of the Raj. Why? Well, for many reasons, many of which were probably hidden (perhaps willfully) below his immediate consciousness, such as his desire to defend the interests of his late father. Yet a fair understanding of Churchill, such as Herman provides here, also must note that his beliefs about race led him to believe that it was the “white man’s burden” to provide stability for the “essentially unstable” inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent. Racial prejudice of this kind was so prevalent in Victorian times that even the intuitively egalitarian Gandhi, at least in the first few decades of his life, held similar prejudices against those other races. His decades-long civil rights campaign in South Africa was that Indians deserved to be treated on par with the ruling English—as opposed to other races. This is no defense or excuse for false beliefs; surely one important test of great persons is their ability to rise above the ethos of their age where necessary. However, the fact that neither of these men adequately did so is not evidence that they should not be revered for their achievements.
Herman is not here to “cancel” these figures or tell their “terrible, deep-dark secrets.” His approach is simply thorough, which inevitably has a humanizing effect. On the other hand, while there is no hagiography to be had here, the way these two men are portrayed still left me awe-struck by the sheer force of will that they maintained through repeated setbacks. As Herman notes, while neither succeeded in his own eyes, the careers of both served mankind—despite their glaring flaws and narrowness. They were men of principle and character, and therefore, they were inevitably narrow. It seems that their narrowness made them arrows, flying faster and farther than others who were “carried by every wind of doctrine.” Of course, I think most of would agree that those principles were not always sure of the mark.
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in these looming historical figures as well as the evening of the Victorian age. It lives up to its subtitle.
October 28, 2024
As a history buff I have to give this five stars because it’s full of information that I was unaware of. Gandhi and Churchill have both always fascinated me, but I didn’t understand they had this incredible connection to each other and its relationship to history. Independence in India, the end of the Raj and their incredibly complex Connections.
But I don’t think anyone who follows me would really enjoy reading this book. Maybe Ian would since it’s a huge part of English history. The only drawback, as with many “ definitive accounts” is that it would’ve been much more of an enjoyable read if it was 400 instead of 600 pages.
I learned a great deal. I’m glad I read it, but it was kind of a struggle and at this point I’m glad I finished it.
PS:
Read Elliot’s review for a very perceptive succinct summary of the book.
But I don’t think anyone who follows me would really enjoy reading this book. Maybe Ian would since it’s a huge part of English history. The only drawback, as with many “ definitive accounts” is that it would’ve been much more of an enjoyable read if it was 400 instead of 600 pages.
I learned a great deal. I’m glad I read it, but it was kind of a struggle and at this point I’m glad I finished it.
PS:
Read Elliot’s review for a very perceptive succinct summary of the book.
May 7, 2024
4 stars.
January 25, 2015
Fox news style distasteful interpretation of Indian history, January 25, 2015
By amazonuser - See all my reviews
This review is from: Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age (Paperback)
True in spirit to his conservative leanings, Arthur Herman makes fox news style arguments to push his rather forced comparisons between the two great men of history where little comparisons existed. Throughout the book, he seems to have an agenda to "Lionize" Churchill and de-"God"-ify Gandhi into a mere failed and meaningless campaigner who was worth more dead than alive to India. Here are the many ways Herman tries to push his abominable agenda in subtle and repetitive manner throughout the book - a) constantly questions the effectiveness of every single campaign led by Gandhi while conveniently ignoring British brutalities that crushed those campaigns and English callousness to Bengal famine, b) comparisons of Gandhi to Hitler and their fanaticism and mass mobilizing their respective nations, c) Use of amateurish references to Churchill as the Lion, Gandhi as the dove, d) constantly quoting the English viceroys and politicians, quotes that reduced Gandhi to a shrewd politician and at best a struggling moral Indian compass and underplaying Gandhi's dogged discipline and focus on spirituality for his inner strength e) Underplaying Gandhi's presence in Calcutta in 1947 where he was able to contain the communal violence - a feat that thousands of armed personnel on the western Indian borders could not achieve f) Underplaying Gandhi's fasting by making constant references to "doctors mixing glucose in the water that Gandhi took during his fasts" g) He cares a hoot to make any "Authorial" commentaries when he quotes those who took cheap shots at Gandhi while uses his authorial license to explain Churchill's decisions - even the most disastrous ones which led Britain and India to their disastrous fates respectively - both individually and collectively. h) Even the title of his chapters and sheepish adjectives for Gandhi (moral leader and not a spiritual one - which he really was) vs. showering "the greatest leader" adjective on Churchill i) last but not the least using fox news style of making a point - i.e. "many historians wrongly believe", "many historians miss the fact about Gandhi", "the truth is something else" etc.- without any references to those beliefs and facts behind those beliefs.
However, I must say, the author is good researcher and historian as evidenced by many historical facts he digs into. Nonetheless, as evidenced by his opinion pieces and writings in NY Post, WSJ etc., the author tends to push his conservative agenda and not only belittles Gandhi in the book but also the later South African struggle led by Mandela, and to an extent MLK's civil rights movement - In all, he seems to make delusive point that "non-violence" is not what helped Gandhi, MLK, Mandela travel their road to freedom but it was the ruling authorities' fear of "violence" that could be spurted by the "non-violent" movement. Distasteful at worst, Dumb at best.
The author seems to beg for credibility for being an expert on India by talking about the translations of Bhagwat Gita he did for his father, an author on Indian matters as well. Unfortunately, he seems either disconnected from the spirit of Indian freedom struggle or chooses to be disconnected.
By amazonuser - See all my reviews
This review is from: Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age (Paperback)
True in spirit to his conservative leanings, Arthur Herman makes fox news style arguments to push his rather forced comparisons between the two great men of history where little comparisons existed. Throughout the book, he seems to have an agenda to "Lionize" Churchill and de-"God"-ify Gandhi into a mere failed and meaningless campaigner who was worth more dead than alive to India. Here are the many ways Herman tries to push his abominable agenda in subtle and repetitive manner throughout the book - a) constantly questions the effectiveness of every single campaign led by Gandhi while conveniently ignoring British brutalities that crushed those campaigns and English callousness to Bengal famine, b) comparisons of Gandhi to Hitler and their fanaticism and mass mobilizing their respective nations, c) Use of amateurish references to Churchill as the Lion, Gandhi as the dove, d) constantly quoting the English viceroys and politicians, quotes that reduced Gandhi to a shrewd politician and at best a struggling moral Indian compass and underplaying Gandhi's dogged discipline and focus on spirituality for his inner strength e) Underplaying Gandhi's presence in Calcutta in 1947 where he was able to contain the communal violence - a feat that thousands of armed personnel on the western Indian borders could not achieve f) Underplaying Gandhi's fasting by making constant references to "doctors mixing glucose in the water that Gandhi took during his fasts" g) He cares a hoot to make any "Authorial" commentaries when he quotes those who took cheap shots at Gandhi while uses his authorial license to explain Churchill's decisions - even the most disastrous ones which led Britain and India to their disastrous fates respectively - both individually and collectively. h) Even the title of his chapters and sheepish adjectives for Gandhi (moral leader and not a spiritual one - which he really was) vs. showering "the greatest leader" adjective on Churchill i) last but not the least using fox news style of making a point - i.e. "many historians wrongly believe", "many historians miss the fact about Gandhi", "the truth is something else" etc.- without any references to those beliefs and facts behind those beliefs.
However, I must say, the author is good researcher and historian as evidenced by many historical facts he digs into. Nonetheless, as evidenced by his opinion pieces and writings in NY Post, WSJ etc., the author tends to push his conservative agenda and not only belittles Gandhi in the book but also the later South African struggle led by Mandela, and to an extent MLK's civil rights movement - In all, he seems to make delusive point that "non-violence" is not what helped Gandhi, MLK, Mandela travel their road to freedom but it was the ruling authorities' fear of "violence" that could be spurted by the "non-violent" movement. Distasteful at worst, Dumb at best.
The author seems to beg for credibility for being an expert on India by talking about the translations of Bhagwat Gita he did for his father, an author on Indian matters as well. Unfortunately, he seems either disconnected from the spirit of Indian freedom struggle or chooses to be disconnected.
December 4, 2017
The narration by Mr. Herman is amazing. While reading, it provides you the intense work done by him to know history. He took around 20 years to write this, and am happy that i could read it. The best part is that this book is not biased, he tried to put the facts letting the readers to judge.
January 13, 2009
This was a skillfully written biography about two very interesting people who substantially shaped the politics of the 20th century.
The biggest message that I learned from this book is that their contributions were not necessarily positive, either one of them. People are fallible; great people are greatly fallible. Gandhi's campaigns, with the exception of perhaps the Salt Satyagraha, were almost exclusively failures (or at least, minor, ho-hum successes). This portion of the book could be considered the story of why non-violent protest (even the one that actually worked!) doesn't actually work. Couple that with Gandhi's ridiculous faddishness (subsisting on goat's milk and oranges??) and his political maneuvering (in the heart of every idealist there's a calculating politician) and one begins to appreciate him more as a human being, and less as a by-word for saintly morality.
Churchill, similarly, was an admirable leader in World War II. He is remembered for this. But this was his third or fourth political reincarnation, after some woeful defeats (that were not, to be fair, entirely his fault). At the same time, reading about his whole career, one gets a much more nuanced picture of the stubborn English bulldog of the Blitz. His pedestal is shorter, so he has less distance to fall; yet reading this, one begins to understand why voters took him out of office shortly after V-E day.
Regarding Herman, the author, he turns a phrase reasonably well. However, his position as a narrator keeps shifting -- it's hard to nail down his prejudices exactly to get a sense of the book's bias. Nevertheless, over the course of the book I began to find him progressively more irritating. Ahh well.
Given the enormous cast of characters, it would have been helpful had this book had a better index, or even an appendix listing the major players in the various political movements discussed in the text. There is a glossary of Indian words used in the text, but it is woefully incomplete; phrases that appear often are often not defined, leaving one to hunt futilely for their first appearance in order to understand the meaning of the text. It's this kind of editorial decision, coupled with inadequate bread-crumbs in the text to remind the reader who the people are, that makes it less approachable--particularly as this is a text that basically has to be read over a long period of time.
The biggest message that I learned from this book is that their contributions were not necessarily positive, either one of them. People are fallible; great people are greatly fallible. Gandhi's campaigns, with the exception of perhaps the Salt Satyagraha, were almost exclusively failures (or at least, minor, ho-hum successes). This portion of the book could be considered the story of why non-violent protest (even the one that actually worked!) doesn't actually work. Couple that with Gandhi's ridiculous faddishness (subsisting on goat's milk and oranges??) and his political maneuvering (in the heart of every idealist there's a calculating politician) and one begins to appreciate him more as a human being, and less as a by-word for saintly morality.
Churchill, similarly, was an admirable leader in World War II. He is remembered for this. But this was his third or fourth political reincarnation, after some woeful defeats (that were not, to be fair, entirely his fault). At the same time, reading about his whole career, one gets a much more nuanced picture of the stubborn English bulldog of the Blitz. His pedestal is shorter, so he has less distance to fall; yet reading this, one begins to understand why voters took him out of office shortly after V-E day.
Regarding Herman, the author, he turns a phrase reasonably well. However, his position as a narrator keeps shifting -- it's hard to nail down his prejudices exactly to get a sense of the book's bias. Nevertheless, over the course of the book I began to find him progressively more irritating. Ahh well.
Given the enormous cast of characters, it would have been helpful had this book had a better index, or even an appendix listing the major players in the various political movements discussed in the text. There is a glossary of Indian words used in the text, but it is woefully incomplete; phrases that appear often are often not defined, leaving one to hunt futilely for their first appearance in order to understand the meaning of the text. It's this kind of editorial decision, coupled with inadequate bread-crumbs in the text to remind the reader who the people are, that makes it less approachable--particularly as this is a text that basically has to be read over a long period of time.
Read
April 25, 2020The title of the book should have been "Busting the myth of Mahatma and making the myth of Churchill ". Author's contempt for Gandhi the man, his actions and policies, movements that he led, constructive works he encouraged etc permeate the book -through and through. Gandhi the visionary is filled with visions of paranoia in author's estimate. Gandhi the determined and disciplined, wavers in author's account. He is made fragile and weak. As if, the author is obsessed with Gandhi he makes Gandhi's criticism his focal point of interest. As a historian, It is one thing to critically analyze Gandhi's actions retrospectively and neutrally, and quite another to find fault and loopholes in everthing he did or was. Based on some obscure news reports and testimonials of government officials, the author finds cunning and contrives even in most benign of Gandhi's intentions. Most of all, while exalting status of Churchill through painting a grander picture of the man than he was, he makes the grandiose but ultimately vain effort of comparing the uncomparable.
The book is made as if to make you sympathize with Churchill and hate Gandhi. If the author's intention was to make an honest account of both the persons, he should have at least shown the same zeal in criticizing churchill. Churchill is made a hero. It is true, he commits blunder but his blunder is shown to be committed inadvertently. Whereas Gandhi's mistakes are his own creation, and his successes result of fortitutios circumstances.
This is no serious history. But, even on entertainment side this book falls short. Though, I was gripped intially by chapters on 1857 mutiny which it presented vividly despite being biased against Indian rebels. However, midway I become lost and confused. The condescending tone that the book takes some time is almost irritating.
After reading "Freedom at Night", I came across this book and thought to give it a try. whereas I was thrilled, gripped and wept throughout "Freedom at midnight" , I was irritated, confused and disappointed throughout "Gandhi and Churchill". Whereas the former book informs and entertains, the later does neither effectively. It only disappoints.
July 27, 2010
Just about any book about Churchill makes interesting reading. Gandhi I didn’t know much about – except for the adulatory movie. No, that’s not exactly true. Human Smoke, the odd pacifist history consisting of snippets from the period leading up to the American entry into WW II, has a lot of bits about Churchill (bloodthirsty warmonger) and Gandhi (man of peace and all round saint). I had just finished that book so I had a little bit of background.
This book casts the protagonists as similar in character and intent. It traces the life stories of both and gives a fair treatment of the times though it is somewhat speculative about each man’s feeling about the other as they didn’t really know each other at all – they met only once. Oddly enough, neither were great politicians. They rode the currents of the times rather well but both were more used than using. History has been kinder to Churchill’s prognostications than to Gandhi’s but then, Gandhi was a bit nuttier than Churchill.
There is much insight into the character and actions of both. Both were more vulnerable to their misconceptions and weaknesses than popular history would indicate, yet each emerges more admirable because of just this failing and how they dealt with it.
Churchill emerges as a not very adept warmonger – he practically lost WW II with his meddling – and Gandhi was happy to go along with a great deal of carnage and slaughter to achieve his ends. As any good history should do, this book shows us the nuances and contradictions in our heroes and reminds us that they were a lot like the rest of us.
The book is generally well written and paced with an excitement uncommon in history of this sort. However, the reuse of the same quotations over and over again indicate a lack of editorial judgment. It doesn’t ruin the book by any means but it does engender a certain amount of eye-rolling.
This book casts the protagonists as similar in character and intent. It traces the life stories of both and gives a fair treatment of the times though it is somewhat speculative about each man’s feeling about the other as they didn’t really know each other at all – they met only once. Oddly enough, neither were great politicians. They rode the currents of the times rather well but both were more used than using. History has been kinder to Churchill’s prognostications than to Gandhi’s but then, Gandhi was a bit nuttier than Churchill.
There is much insight into the character and actions of both. Both were more vulnerable to their misconceptions and weaknesses than popular history would indicate, yet each emerges more admirable because of just this failing and how they dealt with it.
Churchill emerges as a not very adept warmonger – he practically lost WW II with his meddling – and Gandhi was happy to go along with a great deal of carnage and slaughter to achieve his ends. As any good history should do, this book shows us the nuances and contradictions in our heroes and reminds us that they were a lot like the rest of us.
The book is generally well written and paced with an excitement uncommon in history of this sort. However, the reuse of the same quotations over and over again indicate a lack of editorial judgment. It doesn’t ruin the book by any means but it does engender a certain amount of eye-rolling.
October 27, 2018
A shallow and slanted narration of history.
Adjectives like "attractive", 'brave', 'energetic', 'deeply caring about India and it's people' are liberally used when introducing the British in India.
Even the worst British atrocities are contextualized and the most charitable way to explain the actions is found and employed. For example General Dyer, the perpetrator of the Amritsar massacre was "haunted by the violence of the 1857 revolt" when he ordered his soldiers (mostly Indian as the author takes care to emphasize) to shoot on the unarmed men women and children.
The word "backstabbing" is mentioned multiple times with regards to Indians and characteristics like sly and shrewd are implied. For example, much play is given to the rumor that glucose was added to Gandhi's water during his fasts.
History is a curious field where the more one knows about a particular era, easier it is to construct a false narrative. The book is factually correct, but creates a narrative in which the British were anxious to serve the best interest of Indians but were thwarted due to internal politics and religious conflicts within India. Moreover, the leaders of the Indian independence struggle were western educated elites who would perpetuate the inequities and social evils which the British were adamant to correct and was the reason the British resisted granting independence.
Parallels between the lives of Gandhi and Churchill appear forced. - A good speech by Gandhi is referred to his "finest hour" speech.
Not a recommended book to get a true picture of the period or the characters.
Adjectives like "attractive", 'brave', 'energetic', 'deeply caring about India and it's people' are liberally used when introducing the British in India.
Even the worst British atrocities are contextualized and the most charitable way to explain the actions is found and employed. For example General Dyer, the perpetrator of the Amritsar massacre was "haunted by the violence of the 1857 revolt" when he ordered his soldiers (mostly Indian as the author takes care to emphasize) to shoot on the unarmed men women and children.
The word "backstabbing" is mentioned multiple times with regards to Indians and characteristics like sly and shrewd are implied. For example, much play is given to the rumor that glucose was added to Gandhi's water during his fasts.
History is a curious field where the more one knows about a particular era, easier it is to construct a false narrative. The book is factually correct, but creates a narrative in which the British were anxious to serve the best interest of Indians but were thwarted due to internal politics and religious conflicts within India. Moreover, the leaders of the Indian independence struggle were western educated elites who would perpetuate the inequities and social evils which the British were adamant to correct and was the reason the British resisted granting independence.
Parallels between the lives of Gandhi and Churchill appear forced. - A good speech by Gandhi is referred to his "finest hour" speech.
Not a recommended book to get a true picture of the period or the characters.
November 12, 2017
An iconic rivalry where two man who had been rivals for almost four decades and meet only once. One bind the people of India by his uncanny ways and obdurate attitude, which was spiritual for him and other was at helm of affairs having cigar in his hand, lead Britain to famous victory in second world war. An epic battle of thoughts, liberty and for motherland. Sometimes you will admire, and sometimes you will find it amusing: the frustration of Churchill in dealing with Gandhi, which haunted him for years and finally lead to the fall of empire. Such a treat to read about two icons for their respective nations who forged our age in to new modern world.
June 13, 2009
i loved this book, very revealing portrait of political turmoil throught the first half of the 20th century,
and also great notes on the two individuals who along with Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt, helped shape our world during that time..
many surprising notes about G and C and their personalities and beliefs, from reliable sources...
Herman's portrayal of WC is really not that flattering, but I think realistic, the man had his faults, like us all, but was able to rise,
and be remembered as 'great'.. British/Indian relations were very complicated..
and also great notes on the two individuals who along with Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt, helped shape our world during that time..
many surprising notes about G and C and their personalities and beliefs, from reliable sources...
Herman's portrayal of WC is really not that flattering, but I think realistic, the man had his faults, like us all, but was able to rise,
and be remembered as 'great'.. British/Indian relations were very complicated..
August 6, 2022
Excellent audiobook on a topic I never get tired of, the partition of India in 1947.
Churchill & Gandhi were both brilliant men and both loved their countries.
Churchill wanted time to stand still and Britain stay in control of India which was not economical after WW2.
Gandhi wanted India to go back to it's past and have no industry other than wheel-spun cotton.
A really good biography of both men's rise to power, years of glory and eventual death.
Will keep it to listen again in 10 years. 10/10.
Churchill & Gandhi were both brilliant men and both loved their countries.
Churchill wanted time to stand still and Britain stay in control of India which was not economical after WW2.
Gandhi wanted India to go back to it's past and have no industry other than wheel-spun cotton.
A really good biography of both men's rise to power, years of glory and eventual death.
Will keep it to listen again in 10 years. 10/10.
May 22, 2021
This book is a disaster, largely because of two reasons. One, it has several factual inaccuracies. Two, it is too kind on Churchill and too harsh on Gandhi (and I am not a Gandhi fan).
As far as the inaccuracies are concerned, let me highlight just four spread over two pages.
1. Unlike what is stated in the book, Dr BR Ambedkar's education in Columbia was not supported by Christian patrons but by Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda
2. The military action on Hyderabad was orchestrated by Sardar Patel and not Nehru
3. The attack by Afridi tribesmen on Kashmir is not a rumour, and was well-documented. A bloody battle ensued in the region when Afridi tribesmen and Indian forces clashed not far from Srinagar.
4. Savarkar, despite being ultra-orthodox, supported movements for the upliftment of untouchables. Lata Mangeshkar, an extremely renowned Indian singer, recalls how her father and Savarkar arranged joint meals with untouchables. He was also instrumental in allowing temple entry to Harijans.
The other issue, of course, is how the book treats Churchill with kids gloves. The famine of 1943, that killed about 3 million people, is almost mentioned in passing, and Churchill let away with a rap on the knuckle. You would also think that the author seems to agree with Churchill on his assessment of India during the British rule, of it being a benign presence for the multitudes. Countless other books, including Anarchy (Dalrymple) and An Era of Darkness (Tharoor), paint just the other picture supported by data.
The book also speaks highly of Churchill building the Indian corps who proved royal to the Empire during WW2, and rallying the Australians into battle. As for the former, the book contradicts it a few pages later when it talks about the Naval mutiny in 1946 and reaction of the armed forces following the trial of the INA officers. Churchill erred on Australia too, when he asked the Australian military leaders to abandon their wives and children even as the British had pulled out from the Far East, leaving the Japanese next door in New Guinea preparing for an invasion. The Australians refused to fight for the greater good of the empire in India, and instead defended their country bravely, registering a conclusive victory at Milne Bay. The incident, however, did scar the relationship with Britain.
At a later point of time, the book says that Churchill wanted an undivided India, which reminded him of the days of the Raj. Quite contradictory to an earlier chapter where Churchill is said to be the 'Uncle of Pakistan' as this was his way of getting back at Gandhi.
Gandhi, on the other hand, is treated harshly. The book mostly talks about his idiosyncrasies (which were many, along with his stubbornness) and conveniently ignores his impressive traits. The man has largely been portrayed as a failure, and accused of wrecking the plans for Indian independence multiple times. Interestingly, Indians who thought so about Gandhi have been said to be in the wrong. All said and done, as the Indian independence drew to a close, when almost every Congress leader was busy in positions of power, only Gandhi was busy touring the country and douse fires wherever he could. No wonder George Orwell had such high praise for the man. Of course, this is not to deny that Gandhi's strategy was often confused, which ultimately led to the disillusionment of his followers.
Churchill's vision of India did not come true. And while he believed that without the 'benign' presence of the British, the Hindu majority nation would be nightmarish for Muslims and untouchables, the percentage of Muslims in India has only increased over the years (on the other hand, Pakistan and Bangladesh continue to witness a rapidly declining population of Hindus). The country did not fall into 'chaos and violence'. Gandhi continues to be a controversial figure in India, largely because his ideas of village industries and rural setups seem outdated, but his thoughts continue to subtly dictate policy.
What the author gets right though is that both Churchill and Gandhi were obdurate men who thought they could impose their worldview on their followers. But then, as Shaw said, 'all progress depends on the unreasonable man'.
As far as the inaccuracies are concerned, let me highlight just four spread over two pages.
1. Unlike what is stated in the book, Dr BR Ambedkar's education in Columbia was not supported by Christian patrons but by Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda
2. The military action on Hyderabad was orchestrated by Sardar Patel and not Nehru
3. The attack by Afridi tribesmen on Kashmir is not a rumour, and was well-documented. A bloody battle ensued in the region when Afridi tribesmen and Indian forces clashed not far from Srinagar.
4. Savarkar, despite being ultra-orthodox, supported movements for the upliftment of untouchables. Lata Mangeshkar, an extremely renowned Indian singer, recalls how her father and Savarkar arranged joint meals with untouchables. He was also instrumental in allowing temple entry to Harijans.
The other issue, of course, is how the book treats Churchill with kids gloves. The famine of 1943, that killed about 3 million people, is almost mentioned in passing, and Churchill let away with a rap on the knuckle. You would also think that the author seems to agree with Churchill on his assessment of India during the British rule, of it being a benign presence for the multitudes. Countless other books, including Anarchy (Dalrymple) and An Era of Darkness (Tharoor), paint just the other picture supported by data.
The book also speaks highly of Churchill building the Indian corps who proved royal to the Empire during WW2, and rallying the Australians into battle. As for the former, the book contradicts it a few pages later when it talks about the Naval mutiny in 1946 and reaction of the armed forces following the trial of the INA officers. Churchill erred on Australia too, when he asked the Australian military leaders to abandon their wives and children even as the British had pulled out from the Far East, leaving the Japanese next door in New Guinea preparing for an invasion. The Australians refused to fight for the greater good of the empire in India, and instead defended their country bravely, registering a conclusive victory at Milne Bay. The incident, however, did scar the relationship with Britain.
At a later point of time, the book says that Churchill wanted an undivided India, which reminded him of the days of the Raj. Quite contradictory to an earlier chapter where Churchill is said to be the 'Uncle of Pakistan' as this was his way of getting back at Gandhi.
Gandhi, on the other hand, is treated harshly. The book mostly talks about his idiosyncrasies (which were many, along with his stubbornness) and conveniently ignores his impressive traits. The man has largely been portrayed as a failure, and accused of wrecking the plans for Indian independence multiple times. Interestingly, Indians who thought so about Gandhi have been said to be in the wrong. All said and done, as the Indian independence drew to a close, when almost every Congress leader was busy in positions of power, only Gandhi was busy touring the country and douse fires wherever he could. No wonder George Orwell had such high praise for the man. Of course, this is not to deny that Gandhi's strategy was often confused, which ultimately led to the disillusionment of his followers.
Churchill's vision of India did not come true. And while he believed that without the 'benign' presence of the British, the Hindu majority nation would be nightmarish for Muslims and untouchables, the percentage of Muslims in India has only increased over the years (on the other hand, Pakistan and Bangladesh continue to witness a rapidly declining population of Hindus). The country did not fall into 'chaos and violence'. Gandhi continues to be a controversial figure in India, largely because his ideas of village industries and rural setups seem outdated, but his thoughts continue to subtly dictate policy.
What the author gets right though is that both Churchill and Gandhi were obdurate men who thought they could impose their worldview on their followers. But then, as Shaw said, 'all progress depends on the unreasonable man'.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 185 reviews