ประวัติศาสตร์ลับปิดฉากจักรวรรดิอังกฤษ

by Alex von Tunzelmann, สุภัตรา ภูมิประภาส (Translator)

อเล็กซ์ ฟาน ทันซัลมานน์ (Alex von Tunzelmann) ผู้เขียน Indian Summer เล่าไว้ในคำนำฉบับพิมพ์ปี 2017 ในวาระครบรอบ 70 ปีของอิสรภาพอินเดีย ว่าเธอเริ่มต้นจากความสนใจและการทำวิจัยหาข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับลอร์ดหลุยส์ เมานท์แบตเทน กับเลดี้เอ็ดวินา เมานท์แบตเทน ผู้สำเร็จราชการและสุภาพสตรีหมายเลขหนึ่งคู่สุดท้ายแห่งบริติชอินเดีย และเมื่อเธอตามไปหาข้อมูลที่พิพิธภัณฑ์และห้องสมุดเนห์รู เมมโมเรียล (The Nehru Memorial Museum Library – NMML) ในกรุงเดลี ปี 2005 เธอสะดุดตากับภาพถ่ายเลดี้เมานท์แบตเทนกับชวาหะร์ลาล เนห์รู นายกรัฐมนตรีคนแรกของอินเดียอิสรภาพระหว่างเยี่ยมค่ายผู้ลี้ภัย ทั้งสองเกาะกุมมือกันอยู่ เธอบอกว่าเรื่องความสัมพันธ์พิเศษระหว่างสองคนนี้ เป็นเรื่องที่รู้กันและถูกพูดถึงกันทั่วอยู่แล้ว และได้รับการยืนยันโดยลูกสาวของเลดี้เอ็ดวินา และหลานสาวของเนห์รู แต่จะมีเรื่อง “สัมพันธภาพทางกาย” หรือไม่นั้น มีเพียงคนสองคนเท่านั้นที่รู้ และทั้งสองก็ตายไปแล้ว แต่ภาพการเกาะกุมมือกันของทั้งสองในยุคนั้น “โดยเฉพาะระหว่างหญิงแต่งงานแล้วกับพ่อม่าย” สร้างความช็อกให้กับคนจำนวนมากทั้งในอังกฤษและอินเดีย สำหรับเธอในฐานะนักประวัติศาสตร์ สนใจการแปรความในเรื่องความสัมพันธ์อันพิเศษนี้ของทั้งสองกับผลกระทบทางการเมือง

Genres: History, India, Nonfiction, Politics, Asia, Historical, Biography

572 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 2007

About the author

Alex von Tunzelmann is a British historian, screenwriter and author. Tunzelmann has worked primarily as a researcher.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

“On a warm summer night in 1947, the largest empire the world has ever seen did something no empire had done before. It gave up. The British Empire did not decline, it simply fell; and it fell proudly and majestically on its own sword. It was not forced out by revolution, nor defeated by a greater rival in battle. Its leaders did not tire or weaken. Its culture was strong and vibrant. Recently it had been victorious in the century’s definitive war. When midnight struck in Delhi on the night of 14 August 1947, a new, free Indian nation was born. In London, the time was 8:30 p.m. The world’s capital could enjoy another hour or two of a warm summer evening before the sun literally and finally set on the British Empire…”
- Alex von Tunzelmann, Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire

At the midnight hour of August 15, 1947, two new nations were born, and 400 million people – former subjects of the British Empire – gained their independence. It was a remarkable moment in world history, and the highpoint of a remarkable anticolonial movement that used relentless moral pressure to attain its ends.

The achievement, however, was marred by explosive acts of violence both before and after the so-called “partition” that created Pakistan and India. Millions of Muslims left India, while millions of Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan (which was divided into two halves, its eastern portion later becoming Bangladesh). During these massive population exchanges, there were riots, thefts, beatings, sexual assaults, and countless deaths, with the final tally of fatalities typically set at a million.

This is a hugely complex tale of tragedy in the midst of triumph, one that would take several volumes to properly address. In Indian Summer, Alex von Tunzelmann manages to distill it to 318 sharply-written pages of text. To do this, she takes a top-down approach, and runs the narrative through a small handful of marvelously-sketched characters, focusing on intimate moments rather than the grand sweep of events.

***

Three people in particular form the core of Indian Summer. The first is Louis “Dickie” Mountbatten, a pomp-loving British naval officer of limited ability, who nevertheless parlayed his closeness with the Royal family into prominent postings, including the last Viceroy and first Governor-General of India.

The second is his wife, Edwina, a fantastically wealthy woman who – until setting off to India with her husband – was known mostly for her extramarital affairs, which Dickie condoned in a very English way. Later, she rose to the occasion and did her best to help partition’s victims.

The third is Jawaharlal Nehru, a leader in the Indian nationalist movement, and India’s first prime minister following independence. A fascinating figure, a proponent of secularism and democracy, it is his relationship with Edwina Mountbatten that provides the book its beating heart. Though von Tunzelmann does not venture whether their relationship was platonic or sexual, it was undoubtedly intense, their surviving letters speaking to a vivid connection.

Beyond this trifecta, von Tunzelmann also pays close attention to Muhammed Ali Jinnah, the father of Pakistan; Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of a massive nonviolent resistance to British rule; Indira Gandhi, the daughter of Jawaharlal (and no relation to the Mahatma), who later took her own turn as a controversial prime minister, after which she was assassinated by her own bodyguards; and Winston Churchill, portrayed as a bitter relic of imperialism.

Von Tunzelmann is generous and empathetic in her portrayals, and perceptive in her conclusions. Gandhi, for instance, has transcended his humanity, and become more a symbol than a man, his very name synonymous with peace and goodness. Despite working within a confined page count, though, von Tunzelmann does an excellent job placing him back into his historical context, discussing not just his righteousness – especially his last fasts – but his occasional tactical mistakes, including quarrels with Nehru that had considerable consequences.

***

Indian Summer is a popular history, not an academic work. It strives for accessibility. Even if you have read nothing of India’s expansive history before, von Tunzelmann has you covered. She presents a brisk outline of British rule; introduces the major players, including their backgrounds; and then follows them through the tumult, as they make their calculations, argue their points, and decide the fate of a subcontinent.

Telling a big story in a concise way requires a lot of simplification. The politics, the boundary disputes, the divisions within each division, are all mind boggling. Von Tunzelmann gives you the end-results, though she often only summarizes the pathways leading there. Mostly, she is interested in the people, especially Jawaharlal, Edwina, and Dickie.

***

Before picking this up, I had never heard of von Tunzelmann. If I’m honest, her name sounded made-up, and her dust-jacket bio presented no evidence that she is an expert in Indian history. Indeed, it said only that she went to college, and that this was her first book.

Having done a bit more research, it appears that von Tunzelmann is part of a new wave of youngish, “cool” British historians, such as Dan Jones and James Holland. Often blue-haired in pictures, she has since written a couple other books, and a screenplay to boot.

Von Tunzelmann’s prose style is exceptionally readable, filled with vivid passages, finely-set scenes, and an occasional dash of mordant wit. Not being an expert in this area, I can’t speak to her use of sources, other than to note that she relies heavily on personal correspondence. She writes with deep feeling, which allows her to land some emotional blows. But there is also a strange reticence, times when it feels like von Tunzelmann is holding back. She does not make any attempt to explore the burning did-they-or-didn’t-they question of Edwina and Jawaharlal. Similarly, von Tunzelmann does not address the child abuse allegations against Dickie that have arisen in recent years (allegations that have dogged other British officers, and which have their genesis in a tabloid).

It occasionally seems that after devoting herself to these people, von Tunzelmann is trying to protect them. It is also possible that she has elevated the importance of certain of these figures beyond what they deserve. Edwina, for example, is given a starring role in events, whereas in Ramachandra Guha’s 900-page volume on Gandhi, Edwina appears only once by name.

***

When writing about history, there is always a tension between particular acts and impersonal forces. Generally, more “serious” or academic-minded historians prefer to study the larger factors, those beyond the control of any one person. Popular historians, meanwhile, like to identify those moments when everything seems to hinge on a single decision or a single action undertaken by a fallible man or woman.

Von Tunzelmann clearly falls into the latter category. As history, Indian Summer is streamlined, deeper than a mere recapitulation, but still only scratching the surface. As drama, though, this is exceptional, featuring flawed but mostly-well-meaning individuals trying to navigate a transition of power, the likes of which had never occurred before. More than that, in Jawaharlal Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten, von Tunzelmann has created a beautiful portrait of an unusual, lasting, and passionate friendship.

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tunzelmann has concocted a very readable and balanced history of the last days of Empire. Tunzelmann avoids demonizing any sect, individual or nation and shows the circuitous routes through which every decision was squeezed out, many tragedies averted and many more inadvertently precipitated.

He shows the human frailties and noble aspirations of all of the major participants and does not shirk away from exploring the controversial bullheadedness of Gandhi or from going into great detail about the relationship between Nehru and the Mountbattens, especially the amorous ones.

This was perhaps the best handled of all the topics by Tunzelmann - he weaves an almost spiritual love story between Nehru and Edwina that borders on the outrageous but always forces the reader to forgive two extraordinarily humane characters who happened to need each other a bit too much. Even Jinnah and Patel (and Churchill - if only he had met Nehru or Gandhi in person a bit earlier than when he did!) who are often slotted as extremists show their emotional sides and it does feel like Tunzelmann gives them their due - enough blame but also enough praise.

Tunzelmann does dwell too much on the Mountbattens - almost to the extend that the reader might well start imagining that they were the Empire that the book is meant to talk about and their "secrets" were the "Secret" that the subtitle of the book boasts about. If that is the case, the book does indeed uncover some welcome secrets about the end of "Empire".

But, from a political and historic standpoint, there were not many secrets that Tunzelmann brings to the fore. He does throw light on some of the most-discussed events such as the drawing of the Kashmir boundary lines, the allocation of Punjab districts, the annexation of Hyderabad etc and how all of these were such intensely personal decisions - different people at the helm might have resulted in drastically different outcomes - they were less politically motivated than emotionally driven.

For these insights, Indian Summer was a thoroughly readable and unbiased book and well worth reading to understand the inscrutable and amazing human actors that populated one of the most dramatic events of the century.

[Jan-Maat]

My opinion coming into this book was that had Edwina Mountbatten established a ménage a quatre including Jinnah instead of simply a trois excluding him then the business of partition at the end of the British Raj might have been entirely avoided. In part this was confirmed by reading this book, leaving me to imagine that I had formed my view after reading a review of von Tunzelmann's account in the first place.

The young noblewoman, von Tunzelmann, was known to me from her occasional column of reviews of historical, or rather 'historical' films, and she displays the same qualities of wit and research here in this book As you can see from the first quote below - since no doubt there were some people in early Seventeenth century India as much as in England who were illiterate, diseased and smelt bad - she has an occasional fondness for overdrawing a comparison to achieve a sharp effect. , though in places I wondered if this book was maybe too much fun considering the nature of the topic, but then judging from my own first paragraph this is an unavoidable part of discussing partition and the creation of India and Pakistan.

This is a lively, engaging, narrative history that concentrates on the several years around 1947. It is full of detail from the Mountbattens increasingly left-wing political views to Jinnah being turned down as a candidate for a safe Labour seat in Yorkshire during the inter-war period on the grounds of coming across as too much of a toff ie too upper class and not the kind of man who'd wear a flat cap .

What I learnt was the difficult relationship between Jinnah and Nehru was not the product of deep and irreconcilable differences between Hindu and Muslim communities but rather the close and incestuous (perhaps surprisingly given Gandhi's habit of sleeping naked with some of his own youthful female relatives to test his own celibacy, not literally but figuratively speaking) nature of In dian politics in the first half of the twentieth century to my surprise I also found out that Indira Gandhi wasn't the Gandhi's daughter-in-law as I had imagined, but rather her husband changed his similar surname to the one familiar to us today, so Indian politics turned out in at least one relationship to be less incestuous than I had imagined . The two men were rivals; too similar in outlook, education and ambition, and far too interconnected in their personal relationships, to be able to work together. Tragically the only difference that could be fallen back on, to perhaps legitimise their personal rivalry, as something which others could crystallise around was the religious background - had those two been able to sit down, perhaps at dinner in a fashionable restaurant and agreed on a division of power in a post-Empire situation with one, for instance, becoming Prime Minister the other Chancellor of the Exchequer with a wide ranging brief over Economic development, then even without the good offices of Edwina Mountbatten events would have played out very differently. As it was their position in deeply entangled networks of friends and family meant that a disparaging remark made by one over dinner would be heard by the other over their breakfast.

Then there were the likes of Gandhi - a man at all costs to avoid having as your father or husband - who for all his stated rejection of the British legal system was one of the more terrifying negotiators to emerge ever from the Temple, and Winston Churchill, who to preserve British sovereignty over the sub-continent apparently would have intrigued with the Devil and in his absence found Jinnah entirely congenial, and if he could not preserve sovereignty and the glamour of Empire he was happy to settle for the hope of lasting influence naturally completely irrespective of any bloodshed that might cause on the ground. Churchill really was a bit of a Boris Johnson.

It was against this background that Mountbatten, or Battenberg as he was before the First World War, a cousin of the British Royal Family, was dropped in as Viceroy with a brief from the Atlee government to end the British Empire's dominion over India. Partly on ideological grounds, partly because due to the expense of World War Two, it was completely unaffordable.

Mountbatten, despite his naval career which involved colliding with British ships, colliding with British mines, and finally being sunk by the enemy in action - this was turned into the film "In which We Serve" by his friend Noel Coward, a rare instance of a propaganda film being made about an unheroic defeat, before being given a position in command of joint operations and heading up the Dieppe raid disaster it is only fair to mention that Churchill's complete disregard for the loss of human life and the keenness of the Canadian government for their soldiers to get into action also played their parts, remained in all circumstances undaunted and confident in his own judgement.

His one triumph was managing to get his nephew married to the future Queen of Britain. As it turns out, that ability to manage interpersonal relationships in a way to achieve something out of nothing was useful in winning round most of India's Princes to join the new state. For everything else he had the redoubtable Edwina, who in addition to her passionate relationship with Nehru here I ask all readers to remember that Boccaccio several times tells us that one woman may satisfy a man, but it takes many men to please a woman, something that Mountbatten himself was tolerant of Mountbatten appeared to be quite happy living in a room decorated to look like a ship's cabin and being allowed to hold his wife's hand once a month, while Edwina needed something more. A regular rotation of lovers gave her some ease, as did work in emergency relief during and after the Second World War. The relationship between Edwina and Nehru was as politically awkward as it was personally satisfying.

One of the ironies that emerges from von Tunzelmann's account is that a very different post Imperial settlement could have been achieved but for the grasping and clinging for power. Had the British accepted early the impermanence of Empire then a transition to Dominion status and then to independence could have proceeded as it had for Canada. It is easy to imagine one who had participated in the cavalry charge at Omdurman living in the Romantic glow of bugle calls and believing in that more than in the reality of Empire, yet something of that passion for the Romance of empire possessed several generations of the political establishment. Given the circumstances alluded to above and expounded in the book, by the 1940s disaster and terrible loss of life were to go hand in hand with Independence.

The problem, a millionfold problem, is that this is a high level story of the end of empire. A tale of Viceroys and party leaders. When violence breaks out, it comes from nowhere apart from the Amritsar massacre of course, it was plain where that came from. Equally when it stops, the cessation comes from nowhere. Just looking at party leaders, or even Viceroys, is also problematic. No one is a free agent, even leaving aside the mysteries of character formation and political inclination, they were bouncing about in a dynamic situation responding to how others were responding, grasping, acting. Yet I didn't put down this book with an understanding of the Congress Party or the Muslim League, let alone the communities they were appealing to, and acting in response to. As such I would not swear hand on heart that this is the only book you ever need read on partition, independence, and the end of the Raj. But neither does von Tunzelmann ever pretend it is either. If a book dealing with so much loss of life could ever be accused of being too entertaining, this would be it.

[Chrissie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Concerning spoilers: this is a history book. I DO talk about India's history. If you consider that a spoiler, read no more. For me, reading the facts several times only helps to cement them into my head.

I loved this book from beginning to end. If you want a fiction that is light, do not read it. If you want to really understand the people that pulled off India's independence, then I highly recommend it. It is non-fiction, but of the best kind! You learn about the private and public lives of Nehru, Jinnah, Mahatma Gandhi, Louis(Dickie) and Edwina Mountbatten. The love affair between Edwina and Nehru and between Edwina and her husband Dickie are both amazing. Yes, both men truely loved her. She loved them both too! What the Mountbatten's pulled off is fascinating. You learn so much about Kashmir. Kashmir years before the partition is juxtaposed with the situation in Kashmir following partition, making the difference so alarmingly horrible. You learn a bit about the Indira Gandhi's corrupt and undemocratic leadership and the formation of Bangladesh in 1971. What is so wonderful is that although everything is very correct and factual with a million reference notes, the people come alive. It's the little tidbits that make the difference. And yes, you learn alot about the British royal family. Every page was interesting. Some bits were difficult for me simply b/c I had so much to learn. Don't shy away from the book if you know very little. You absorb what you can. The next book will teach you more, but this is a fabulous place for anybody to start. It is funny too. What some of the guys and gals do and say are priceless. Did you know that Mounbatten was killed by the IRA?! I didn't.

Through page 235: This remains totally fascinating! If you want to understand why Kashmir is the big mess it is today, read this book. It is really amazing what Mountbatten accomplished. Maybe if he had taken a little more time there would have been less turmoil? Who knows! The photos are really fun. The pictures of my Mom and Dad fit exactly into this time period. Same clothes, same hair styles, same hats!

Through page 100: I certainly did not know that Indira Gandhi was NOT the daughter of Mohandas Gandhi(more commonly called Mahatma Gandhi). She was in fact the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru. Indira married Feroze Gandhy, who in the 30s changed the spelling of his last name from Gandhy to Gandhi. Here again the personal relationships are peculiar. Feroze originally was attracted to Indira's mother, but she died in 1936. Then it was her daughter that caught his eye! The name change turned out to be quite a boon to his wife's future career! The more you read history, the more you become aware that changing your name was the thing to do at the beginning of the 20th Century!

I also want to mention that the book provides helpful maps and facts are comprehensively noted with references to the sources.

Through page 93: Another two prime characters behind Indian independence and the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh are both Winston Churchill and Ali Jinnah, who came to represent the Muslims in India. This man was the leading figure in the formation of Pakistan and became her first Governor-General in 1947. Churchill is only discussed in relation to his role in relation to India. He really hated the Indians and their religion and was vehmently against Indian self-rule. As a good excuse he stated that the opposing religious and caste group would tear each other apart if given self-rule. There is some truth to this if you obseve what later happened.... The funny thing is that Gandhi, in his demand for spotless moral perfection, was also in fact an obstacle to Indian self-rule. There IS comprehensive information about many aspects of Jinnah's life. The important Indian personalities were so often educated in Britain. Although Jinnah was in fact educated at a madrassa in Karachi, he too functioned within the British norms. British high society is so much a part of the scene in which they all moved, the standard against which people were judged. Personally, I find the rampant infidelity of all the men and women quite astounding. I do not like this posh British style of behavior. It drives me nuts...... but this is not a fairy tale, and this IS what happened. I find that so many of the characters are behaving so badly, it makes me disgusted.

Through page 57: This book provides in-depth but easily readable text concerning India's independence and the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh. The focus is on the key players who made independence a reality - beginning with Mohandas Gandhi, then Jawaharlal Nehru, Louis Mountbatten and Prince Edward (David), Prince of Wales. The depiction of these characters, from their youth, is comprehensive. I particularly enjoyed learning more about Gandhi. You learn how his beliefs in passive resistance and non-violence developed. You learn how as a teenager he rebelled - smoking, stealing, eating meat. Then he marries and forms his own family. You lean how it was for his family to live with highly revered person. Life was not rosy for them! He was greatly influenced by his wife. He in fact attributes his belief in non-violence to her. And you learn of his strong support for the British.

All the characters mentioned above interact with each other. Their actions came to shape history. The discussion of the royal family had me a bit confused, but how Mountbatten came to be involved with David is interesting. Mountbatten was the great grandchild of Queen Victoria. Tsar Nicholas II, soon to abdicate, was his brother-in-law. All the family connections form an amazing knot of threads. Honestly, I am a little worried I will not be able to keep everything straight...... It is complicated. Nehru's youth is also comprehensively covered. Of course, he will become the first prime Minister of India and have an affair with Mountbatten's wife Edwina, but I haven't come that far. We are still in the formative years. To understand how India's independence was achieved, to understand how Pakistan and Bangladesh came into being, you have to understand the lives of the people who brought it about.

**********************
*Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire 5 stars
*The Mountbattens: Their Lives & Loves TBR
*Daughter of Empire: My Life as a Mountbatten TBR

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have often wondered about the history surrounding the creation of the independent country of India and how it split with the British Empire. When I saw that Alex von Tunzelmann had penned a thorough history of this, I was quick to find a copy so that I could educate myself a little more. There is no doubt that von Tunzelmann does a spectacular job with this book, educating the reader throughout and keeping the story moving. With so many actors and moving parts, it can be somewhat daunted to try deciphering everything, but the book sets itself up to be both thorough and clear in its delivery, making the experience all the more enticing for me. I cannot say enough about Alex von Tunzelmann and how pleased I am to have found this book.

India’s complexity is nothing if not daunting. British historian Alex von Tunzelmann makes this clear in the opening chapters of the book, as she tries to offer readers some context as to how the jewel in the British Empire became one of its most troubling children, with a number of players who sought independence as soon as it was possible. The reader discovers Mohandas Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Louis ‘Dickie’ Mountbatten. all of whom played central roles in the development of the mature Indian state and its push for independence. But events did not emerge one sunny day, without context, which is why von Tunzelmann spends the first few chapters providing content about these men and their upbringing, as well as how this fit into the larger Indian narrative. The reader can see how each had their upbringing that would shape their political and social opinions for decades to come, all coming together in the independence of India in 1947.

As the history progresses, it becomes clear that Gandhi and Nehru sought independence for Indian from different perspectives but pushing for the same reasoning; India deserved to rule itself and its people sought control of their own politics. Nehru used parliamentary means, with his stunning prose and ability to negotiate effectively, as the narrative reflects at numerous points. Gandhi, on the other hand, chose acts of defiance and publicly drew attention to himself for the cause. He would have fasting periods in order to seek Indian independence, trying to blackmail the British into doing something that would ensure India received what it deserved. When Mountbatten came into the scene, as India’s viceroy, he served to represent the Crown, but could see that his role was being watered down by local sentiment, no matter how hard he tried. The jewel in the British crown was loosening and it was only a matter of time before there would be nothing left for the British to hold onto, no sense of connection or population wanting Britain’s protection.

While the inevitable was happening, India was not in pristine shape. It had countless issues within its borders, with vast swaths of different social and religious groups, each wanting their own voice and potential independence from a central government. The Muslim heavy area of the country sought their own state (what would be Pakistan) and the Sikh population also wanted something of their own. The British could see that the new Indian state would not rush off without issue, but stepped back as a swift August 15, 1947 date approached for handing things over. As von Tunzelmann explores, the Indian preparatory stage was wrought with bumps and bruises, trying to see what would be ‘India’, what would go to Pakistan, and which parts would declare for themselves. The narrative clips along by this point, providing some interesting asides as plans for the Royal wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Phillip fast approached, casting some shadow in Britain on the dismantling of the Empire.

In the final section of the book, von Tunzelmann explores the infancy of India and how it sought to keep together. Britain was not prepared to keep the training wheels on, nor did some within India want them. However, there were struggles to get a unified message of independence out to the world, as the USSR—living almost in the geographic backyard—looked for allies in the brewing Cold War. This could prove to be a key challenge, but India appeared keen to keep its support focussed on the US and UK, rather than turn to the Soviets. This would be one country that could be a real powerhouse, depending on which way it chose to offer its support. The key actors died for their causes, though each was able to see India move into a successful country,. The next generation moved in and filled the void, pushing the world’s largest democracy towards the 21st century.

The greatest thing about reading a book for me is what I will discover within its pages. Alex von Tunzelmann makes sure that I come away with something, in this case, a great deal, to contemplate and synthesis for myself. I do enjoy learning and there was a great deal of that in this tome, as the history moved along at breakneck speed. The narrative flow worked well, usually pushing forward in a chronological fashion, while the reader is forced to pluck bits of knowledge along the way. Chapters within the book are well themed, but also keep the reader in suspense, at least for those who are not familiar with the history of the region or India itself. To say that a great deal happened in a short period of time would be an understatement, but von Tunzelmann provides thorough accounting of everything and left the reader with so much to digest. I got so much out of this book and can only hope that others who take the time to read it will do the same.

Kudos, Madam von Tunzelmann, for educating me in a way that proved entertaining as well!

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

[Vik · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book has, arguably,the most arresting opening despite being a non fiction (only exception- Orwell's 1984, David Copperfield and Moby Dick)

Alex begins the story of British Raj with, "In the beginning, there were two nations. One was a vast, mighty and magnificent empire, brilliantly organized and culturally unified, which dominated a massive sathe of the earth. The other was an underdeveloped, semi-fedual realm, riven by religious factionalism and barely able to feed its illiterate, diseased and stinking masses.
The first nation was India. The second was England"

Her excruciating and honest account of how India Sepoys misused their sentiments, in 1857, is almost impossible to read without a crunchy feeling of horror,
"The English were shot, beaten to death, hacked with swords, and burned alive. Among the victim was a seven years old girl, her skull sliced in two by a single stroke from a blade; and twenty three years old Charlotte Chambers, the foetus ripped out of her womb and dumped contemptuously on her breasts"

Author has an eye for her characters, "Fashionable Indians went to Oxford or Cambridge for their education, and London for their tailoring; they read voraciously the classics of English literature and often speak English as their first language. New Indian generation was growing up with notion of equality, justice, citizenship and democracy"

The author has completely changed my opinion the way I look at Gandhi. He was a great politician whom we owe so much for our freedom but also a sadist who preached nonsense, "Women should not resist rape, and they should defeat their assailants by remaining passive and silent." He told Britishers, “Let Nazi take possession of your beautiful island... allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered." He advised Jewish to give up their own lives as sacrifice and praised Hitler for gaining victory in 1940 without much bloodshed. He forcefully refused his wife to take penicillin, which resulted in her death.

However as usual like any other decent and fearless author, a blow on self pity Hindu nationalist, she described Jawaharlal Nehru as Indian Caesar for his unmatchable charisma, hard-work, love for freedom and commitment to scientific and rational thinking

I think after ages I have read a decent book on Indian modern history. What a self pity that up until now, I had been immune from this wonderful book.

[Lubinka Dimitrova · Rating 5 out of 5]

I chose this book for the purpose of learning more about the events that surrounded the end of the British Raj and the partition of India, being fully aware of its underlying "gossipy" nature. Alex von Tunzelmann presents those tumultuous events and their aftermath through five people: lord Mountbatten and his wife Edwina, the incoming Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, the founder of Pakistan Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and the informal political leader of India Mohandas Gandhi. Although I wasn't really worried that some "juicy details" might impair any political analysis (since the book is very honest about its nature, plus, history is made and affected by people and their personalities), I was pleasantly surprised by the author's ability to paint a lively picture of her characters and their complex relationships, among which were a colorful pair, joined in an unique marriage, love of pomp and grandeur fantasies, close, life-long friendships, bitter enmities and clashes of powerful wills. While her goal might not be to present an exhaustive account of events, she has included enough history for the reader to be able to grasp the complex and interconnected interactions of the protagonists, whose idiosyncrasies affected how "a stagnating mess [was turned] into perhaps the most successful retreat from empire in history — from the point of view of the imperialist nation, at least.”

Her depiction of Mountbatten is surprisingly even-handed (and I'd dare say, quite entertaining); while she is not very kind to his many short-comings as a a rather vain man and as particularly inept wartime commander, she still manages to show why and how he was just the man for this specific task: to get Britain out of India as swiftly and cheaply as possible. Britain wanted to quit India with dignity, if possible, but speed above all; the cost in human lives was of secondary importance. Hence, when Gandhi told him "You must face the bloodbath and accept it.", Mountbatten didn't really have a choice - his hands were tied by the particularities of the situation and it is not clear that anyone would have managed to achieve a better result in resolving the hot mess of India's partition.

"The very incomprehensibility of what a million horrible and violent deaths might mean, and the impossibility of producing an appropriate response, is perhaps the reason that the events following partition have yielded such a great and moving body of fictional literature and such an inadequate and flimsy factual history. What does it matter to the readers of history today whether there were 200,000 deaths, or 1 million, or 2 million? On that scale, is it possible to feel proportional revulsion, to be five times more upset at 1 million deaths than at 200,000?"

Lady Mountbatten's depiction is just as compelling. Her personal eccentricities are not overlooked, but presenting her charitable work throughout her life, the fact that she devoted her considerable intelligence and energy to the service of others, shows why she is universally praised for her life work in relieving the suffering of her fellow human beings, wherever she happened to be located.

Tunzelmann devotes many pages to her relationship with Nehru and its possible impact on events (the alienation of Muslim leaders, who feared that through Edwina, Nehru was biasing the Viceroy in favour of Hindus). The author avoids to assert whether that relationship was ever consummated, and it is in fact of no importance whatsoever. The book, while surely not the most definitive work on India's Partition, is worth an excellent rating, being both enlightening and entertaining for a lay reader, who is given many points to think about after turning the last page.

[Emiliya Bozhilova · Rating 3 out of 5]

По времето, когато британската империя е империята, в която слънцето никога не залязва, 400 милиона от нейните 500 милиона поданици са жители на индийския субконтинент. Слънцето залязва през 1947 г., когато банкрутиралата след втората световна война Великобритания вече няма ресурсите да поддържа индийските си владения. А едно от ключовите условия на бъдещия заем, който САЩ се готвят да отпуснат на Острова, е независимостта на Индия. Икономически интереси са продиктували зараждането на британската империя, икономически интереси я погребват.

Днешните Индия, Пакистан и Бангладеш са рожба на няколко ключови фигури, които са и основните “герои” на тази книга.

Махатма Ганди. Религиозен лидер, който счита, че индийците не са готови да бъдат независими, ако не станат първо по-добри човешки същества. Отрича индустриализацията. Твърдо защитава бруталната кастова система, а изтеглилите късата клечка следва да се пречистят чрез страданието. Яростен противник на религиозното разделение между индуисти и мюсюлмани, защитава мюсюлманските бежанци. Това му спечелва куршум от фанатизиран индуист.

Джавахарлал Неру. Първият премиер на Индия. Един от най-човечните и енергични политици, за които съм чела. Светски и дори антирелигиозно настроен, радетел за образование, социална справедливост и реална демокрация. Често несъгласен с Ганди, но реално по-близо до него от много негови привърженици. И съвсем не безгрешен, но винаги човек.

Мохамед Али Джина. Създателят на днешен Пакистан, страната на чистите, както се превежда името и.

И колоритният ”Дики” Маунтбатън, чиято фамилия е поангличанчена версия на оригиналната му немска фамилия Батенберг. Последният представител на Империята. Начертал границите за отрицателно време, което - въпреки добрите намерения - води до касапница между сикхи и мюсюлмани в Пунджаб, между хиндуисти и мюсюлмани в Кашмир. Етническата кланица при новите геополитическк реалности продължава дълго, жертвите вероятно са милиони, но и днес няма точни данни, и днес все още хвърля сянка. Въпросът дали империята е можела да направи излизането си по-плавно, е безсмислен в ретроспектива.

Авторката поднася периода 1947 - 1948 г. в почти романова форма. Предисторията също е очертана. Портретите са разписани с безброй цитати от писма, документация и преса. Това “оживяване” на мен ми дойде в повече и леко поразхвърляно. В доста моменти авторката уморително се отплесва в несъществени случки и упражнения по остроумие. Но поуките и ярките моменти са доста, а фактологичното проучване е детайлно. Разпадането на империите, изглежда, винаги е кървав процес, само степента му варира.

3,5⭐️

[Ujjwala Singhania · Rating 3 out of 5]

An entertaining book with an irreverent and tounge in cheek writing style. The story of the great British Empire at the crucial time of two World Wars and Indian Independence is written with three major participants as its central figures - Lord Mountbatten, Jawaharlal Nehru and Lady Mountbatten. The book narrates the life history of these three people and their role in India-Pakistan partition and independence.
The author takes us on a journey to the world of royalties and how they lived their lives with their parties, hunting, touring the colonies, gowns and diamonds.
Lord Mountbatten is handsome and dashing but a disaster at every job. His one great quality was to make and use contacts to get ahead in life. So, he endear himself to the prince and king of England and changes his allegiance with the change in monarchy. He is a buffoon and after his adventures in the English Channel during the Second World War when the British govt wanted someone to sort out the mess called India, his name came up and his bosses were only too happy to get him out of their hair.
Jawahar, the beloved child of Motilal Nehru, started his life in unimaginable wealth in an enslaved nation. On his return from England, he got mesmerized with the idea of an independent India and dedicated his life in the cause. He was handsome and charming with a short temper. He was the protégé of Gandhi, a charismatic leader, with a child like innocence, a reluctant Prime Minister who wanted to leave politics and retire. His one fault was his handling of Kashmir during partition. He couldn't separate his feelings of his roots, being a Kashmiri Pandit, and he wanted Kashmir to be a part of India at all cost.
Edwina, Lady Mountbatten, one of the wealthiest women in the world had a series of love affairs, Nehru being one of her admirers. They had this great love affair which started when the Mountbattens came to India as the last Viceroy, but it cannot be proved how far the relationship went. Lord Mountbatten had always been aware of her many affairs and even fascinated them because he couldn't live without her. And so he encouraged her affair with Nehru as well, there was no political motivation and manipulation behind it. Edwina was intelligent, she had wits which her husband lacked. She transformed from a social butterfly into a woman with a cause during Second World War with her ambulance service and similar other relief works during partition. In her element, she was a force to reckon with and could get things done. She was also helping shape policies behind the scene because of her influence over Nehru and Gandhi.
Gandhi was this little man in a loin cloth who was considered an evil genius by the Empire who hated him. Their dilemma was they wanted him to die, especially during one of his so called fasts, but couldn't let him die on their watch, in the glare of international media. And some of his actions and statements mentioned in the book really paints him evil. I believe Gandhi would have certainly faded into ignominy post independence if he were alive. Godse did a disservice by killing him and making him a martyr for eternity and damnned the nation.
Jinnah was a secular professional with great political acumen, greater than Nehru, who believed in Hindu Muslim unity. It was his distrust of Gandhi, a stray comment by Nehru on his political currency and several short sighted actions of INC that made him demand a separate nation. Even then the demand was just to put pressure on the govt for a fair deal given to Muslim in the independent India then an actual desire for a new carved out country. And per the author, though he asked for Pakistan, till the very end he didn't believe it would become a reality and didn't know what to do with it when he became the premier of a new country. He didn't want the responsibility.
It makes for an enjoyable reading even if you don't agree with how the various figures have been portrayed and the accolades and blames apportioned to them for their various decisions.
However, the reason for my two-star rating is how several of the events were stated as facts in the book. A few examples - though Jinnah gave a call for Direct Action Day, the bloodbath was started by people from both religions. Naokhali was a riot like any other that was happening elsewhere in India. Bengal famine happened because British govt moved supplies out of India to feed its army during war, however, the blame lies with the Govt of Bengal because there was enough ration in the warehouses to feed the masses but they didn't release it. The persecution during the great migration started in India-side of Punjab by Hindus and Sikhs which expanded to Delhi, Bengal and elsewhere (written in gory detail) and only as a reaction to this the riots started in Pakistan. The wealthy Hindus and Sikhs started fleeing to India even after Jinaah personlly made assurances to their safety. The pathan tribesmen invaded Kashmir as a response to the persecution happening in India and Jinnah and his govt didn't have any hand in it. Finally, Sardar Patel wanted India to be a Hindu nation and gave his support to Hindu Mahasabha. He also went to Mountbatten to help him get the 565 princely states to accede to India. So, it was Mountbatten and not Patel who brought the various princely states to sign the IOU in favor of India. Patel was truculent and a bully; his actions against Junagadh was unnecessary and against Hyderabad was uncalled for. The issue of Kashmir was of Nehru's making despite the best efforts of Mountbatten and exacerbated by Patel. The Maharaja had dubious legitimacy to sign the IOU, Patel had the plan ready to put soldiers on ground even before a final decision was taken and at the end of all Pakistan felt cheated and they were justified in feeling so. These are just some of the events and it doesn't sit well with me, there is also how various events or stories narrated in the book which had this usual condescending attitude couched in subtleties which makes me wonder if these people will ever get off their high horses.

[Umesh Kesavan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A gripping account of the last days of British Raj in India. The book focuses on the personalities of Edwina , Dickie and Nehru to explain how things panned out as they did in 1947. The author's eye for detail and interesting anecdotes make the book a valuable addition to the literature on partition.

[Saswati · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rating: 3.5 stars, maybe?

Edwina Mountbatten is a remarkable woman and this needs to be acknowledged.

I shall return to this later.
---------------------------------------------------

For a country that boasts nearly five thousand years of history, the mere two hundred years of the colonial rule seems to have the maximum impact, poisoning the psyche of the descendants. Sadly, Indian historians have taken a lot of liberty in portraying a moth-eaten sequence and analysis of events. With the generation that witnessed the events of Partition slowly coming to a close, it has become even more imperative to preserve an unbiased and untainted record of events. The Central Board history textbooks have been woefully devoid of any unglorified account, especially that of the all-important freedom movement (Thank you, a series of Congress governments!). My obsession ride started with India's Struggle for Independence by Bipan Chandra et al., which fired my imagination. How much of the important part of history has been kept secret from us?

It was a work of intense and meticulous research, highly academic (though littered with Nehru and Gandhi fanboy moments). This was followed by Wikipedia-sniffing, Brittanica-devouring (irony, I know) days, Googling random events and studying them to great details. The picture slowly started making sense, especially so after a lip-smacking helping of An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India by Shashi Tharoor (yes, the same guy who makes headlines for the most complex vocabulary on Twitter. Rodomontade, anyone?). Now, I thought, I am ready to tackle even more complex books. I landed up in Indian Summer. Anti-climatic, I know.

No. This is NOT exactly a history book. This book left me in splits; it is replete with the absolutely juicy, page 3-worthy elements of the 1920s and onwards. Presented in an accessible-yet-sophisticated form. It is a welcome relief from historical accounts presented in a dry, jail-food boring manner, which makes people assume that the characters are simply one-dimensional (“Haw! Gandhiji indulged in sex?!”). Subsequent veneration and glossing-over of the flaws of the leaders strips them of the human features, making them absolutely unrelatable. As if they could do no wrong. As if they are not human enough (I consider this akin to de-humanisation, often practised by the warring armies). This book, in the very least, makes them look ‘human’.

I knocked the stars off because I felt that the book, in an attempt to weave a fluid, fruitcake-like story, decided to use all-purpose flour: all gluten, little nutrient.

1. Essential characters, who played as important a role as the protagonists, have been relegated to the background. Yes, Gandhi did find a political heir in Nehru Jr., mentioned in the book, at the expense of his progenies. But this was not without soul searching, thinking and overthinking. Other notable candidates like Subhash Chandra Bose and Sardar Patel were also given their share of suspense. They have been given only passing mention. Since the Indian summer of independence (or maybe monsoon) was a veritable potpourri of decisions taken by several characters, they deserve their tale to be told.

2. The events and timelines have been botched up a bit. For example, Dharasana Satyagraha, the iconic subset of Dandi March, which took place a month later, has been written as if it took simultaneously (I know I am nitpicking, but I got confused at this page!).

3. Yes yes, the Mountbattens did play an important role in facilitating the exit of British Raj from the “Jewel in the Crown” India. But the couple and their love story, infidelities and high society (mis)adventures simply do not warrant so much page-time, especially when the author has titled the book “Indian Summer”. The author could have chosen another title (or, if not anything else, subtitle), that would have reflected the realities of Indian summer.

So, I will talk only about the topics mentioned, about which, in a frenzy of a school-textbook-syllabus-completing spree, nobody bothers to talk about.

The author relies heavily on the autobiography of Krishna “Betty” Nehru Hutheesing and borrows several anecdotes and statements. Betty’s sense of humour and observations are spot-on and no-nonsense. She did seem to have a soft spot for her father, despite his nationalist activities resulting in long absences. Prior to reading this book, Motilal Nehru’s biggest claims to fame were (in this order): 1. He was the progenitor of the first Prime Minister, 2. Lead author of the Nehru Report (1928) as a response to the colonial government’s challenge, 3. The guy who started the Swarajya Party with C.R. Das (1924) to contest in elections. This book changed my view of this man. Von Tunzelmann has drawn out the sharp wit and even sharper legal knowledge of Pt. Motilal Nehru in the most fascinating fashion. He was at loggerheads with his son on several matters, but that did not prevent him from holding his own, even against the man he admired the most: Mohandas Gandhi.

Jawaharlal Nehru, Chachaji as we were taught to call him in childhood, was a man born with a silver spoon in the mouth. The author mentions that his marriage was, more or less, a loveless one. But he did dedicate his autobiography to his wife, Kamala (The fanboy club, which wrote the history of India for school kids, quite conveniently forgot to include the contributions of Kamala Nehru (née Kaul)). Nehru spent the 1920s touring the continent of Europe (with the British Secret Service secretly in tow) and was thrilled to have been invited to Russia. He was appalled by the atrocities of Stalin but was equally impressed by the state-led development model.

Louis “Dickie” Mountbatten, in most discussions, makes an entry in the Indian scene only after Wavell decides enough is enough. Wavell had unkind terms for the Indian nationalists in his journal, especially so for Mohandas Gandhi (“PM managed the discussion well from his point of view, as he drew each speaker away from principle, onto matters of details and waved the bogey of Gandhi at everyone.”). Dickie Mountbatten was related to more than half the royal families of Europe. Combined with the fact that Britain was running on borrowed fuel after World War II, Dickie made a good diplomatic and economic choice as the last Viceroy of India. He has been portrayed as a cookie dough of contrasting natures: vain and airheaded, but determined, navy-obsessed wife-neglecting but a loving husband with an unhealthy obsession towards unnecessary pageantry. He was definitely clumsy, quite adept at scoring own goals.

Edwina Mountbatten (née Ashley), the rich heiress, brought up in austerity. The beautiful memsahib who was so much in love with Dickie, she was prepared to travel third-class in the train (Mind you, it was the colonial era). The book chronicles the affectionate relationship she shared with her grandfather and the tumultuous one with father. Edwina, despite being a socialite (with several “scandals” under her belt), has been portrayed as humanly as possible. She was jealous of her husband’s liaisons outside their marriage, which amounted to hypocrisy. Tired of the constant parties, debauchery and an unhappy marriage, she threw herself into travelling, especially in the Middle East (there were no insurgents then), helping her Jewish relatives escape to London, and visiting the air-raid shelters. By the time I reached Part II of the book, my respect for Vicereine Edwina Mountbatten reached unprecedented levels. Why do we not know more about the lady? Why is she pushed to footnotes of books, associated only with scandals, especially the speculations of romance with Nehru? Surely she was much more than that! History writers have done a great disservice to this lady.

"A sure sign of her effectiveness was that the Governor General’s aides-de-camp began to try to avoid being on her staff. Anyone required to serve with Edwina would have to help with a variety of gruesome tasks in unpleasant locations."

Apart from the free-flowing scandals, the lady was associated with St. John’s Ambulance and worked towards the rehabilitation of riot victims. Unlike her predecessors, she did not feel any qualms to visit Gandhi in an Untouchable colony. Despite the status of their marriage, Edwina exerted an enormous amount of influence on Dickie and made sure that what she asked for was met. The Nehru and Edwina romance is often attributed to the persuasive powers of the latter. There are certain parts which don’t really add up. The author insists that Edwina had an important role in persuading Nehru to accept the plan of Partition. It sounds far-fetched, but I will need to read more on the topic.

If you’re an Indian, and you have not heard of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, you do not exist. His teachings and thinking have spawned an entire branch of philosophy (threatening to become a religion), Gandhian philosophy. The man, in a loincloth, took the world by storm, with the likes of Martin Luther and Barack Obama in the fan club. This book is a brave attempt to assign human qualities back to him. True, his teachings have inspired generations of leaders as well as citizens; but his pigheadedness at certain values certainly doesn’t absolve him from all the sins. In a nutshell, I wouldn’t want to have him as my father, husband or any close male relative.

Churchill. I put him in the same basket as Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. Take offence, if you must, but I hate that “beastly little man”.

One repetitive event that stood out for me was the incessant parties among the rich and powerful elite. While the country was burning, jolted by birth pangs, the ones who were responsible for starting the fire had a voracious appetite for fine wine and food. The author has described the process of Partition quite vividly, bringing out depth and emotions attached. The emotions ran high, with both the infant nations wooing, threatening and cajoling the princely states, as and when necessary. The process was messy, violent and left bitterness for years to come. Jinnah, dismayed at inheriting a “moth-eaten” Pakistan, did not back down from burning the stables of his Indian counterpart. The hues of the first leadership teams of both India and Pakistan continue to colour the countries, even after more than seventy years of independence.

The aftermath of Partition, death of Mohandas Gandhi and blossoming of Nehru-Edwina romance coincided with the writing and adoption of the gargantuan Constitution of India. It is nothing short of a miracle. No wonder the previous generation holds it in mythic reverence.

If I have to cherry-pick three events that left an indelible impact on Indian National Movement, they would be:
1. Russian defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05: After the brutal blow on the 1857 Revolt, which the author has described in a compact-yet-vivid manner, the morale of Indians was at an all-time low. Sporadic revolts and movements did spring up (Indigo Revolt (1859-60), Pabna Movement (1870), Deccan Riots (1874-79)), but none could scale up the extent in the empire-shaking-o-meter as the revolt of 1857 did (even if its geographical area and expected outcomes were quite small). The Japanese victory gave hope and strength to the nationalists, re-instating the belief that Europeans are not infallible.

2. Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre: 1919 was a momentous year in the history of British India. Up till then, Indians (“natives”) had stretched the self-imposed wool over their eyes, blissfully believing that the British empire was benevolent and would treat its colonial subjects in a just manner. However, the notoriety of the Rowlatt Act yanked the wool right out. Coupled with the ghastly Jallianwala Bagh massacre, Indians now definitely woke up to the fact that colonialism is doing them no good. Oh yes, the Great War had just ended. The treatment meted out was an insult to the injury.

3. Salt Satyagraha and Dandi March of 1930: This was a masterstroke, an absolute gem of meticulous planning, a display of discipline by the diligent agitators and astute utilisation of psychological quirks of all: Indians, colonial rulers and foreigners. The Dharasana Satyagraha, especially, captured the imagination of the world audience, leaving them enraptured and numb at the same time. Wave after wave, satyagrahis lay in pools of their own and fellow satyagrahis blood. But nobody raised a finger at the colonial police which showed an ugly face and brutality. The Academy Award-winning movie, Gandhi, has portrayed this event in the most poignant manner.

And thus, all the king’s horses and king’s men, could not put the Raj together again. If anything, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of the most frighteningly smart politicians of his age.

The author mentions in the acknowledgements that the estates of the Mountbattens and the Nehru-Gandhis were not cooperative in providing access to private letters and archives. Considering the amount of hero-worshipping that surrounds the mentioned people, coupled with the Indian mentality of “log kya kahenge (What will people say)?!”, I am not surprised.

Do I recommend this book to hatchling history buffs? No! You must get your fundamental knowledge down to T first. Don’t stuff yourself with junk food before you even had a morsel of a balanced diet.

Veterans: You may find this fun. And the bibliography quite interesting.

[Steve Greenleaf · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the benefits of reading history is that you don’t have to be an academic historian to succeed in the field. Indeed, from Herodotus and Thucydides to Gibbon, Macaulay, Carlyle, Parkman, and Henry Adams, up through many successful and worthwhile practitioners writing today, we have a wealth of non-academic historians who enlighten and entertain us with graceful prose. (I realize one might argue about Adams, since he taught Medieval History at Harvard for a while, but I don’t believe that his major works were written while in the academy or for the academy.) Our move to India led me to discover William Dalrymple, who writes beautifully about contemporary India and the Middle East, as well as having written very highly regarded histories set in India and Afghanistan. In fact, via a piece that he wrote for the wonderful Five Books site, I discovered Alex Von Tunzelmann’s Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire.

The title might prove misleading, since the “secret”, as the author notes within her work, was not so much a secret as a little-known or little-discussed (but not completely unnoticed) situation. The “secret” was that the wife of the last British Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, had a love affair with the first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Of course, this love affair (the details of intimacy remain unknown) unfolded against the huge historic panorama of Independence and Partition. As Dalrymple notes in his remarks about Von Tunzelmann, in focusing on these three actors, she tells the immensely complicated story of Independence and Partition in manner that provides a sense of the immensity of the problems and undertakings without enmeshing us in details that would overwhelm most readers. In addition to focusing on the triangle formed by the Mountbattens and Nehru, she also deals deftly with other significant players such as Gandhi, Jinnah, and Patel in India, and with Churchill, Attlee, and others back in Britain.

Von Tunzelmann does an excellent job of setting the scene for the momentous events of Independence and Partition by first establishing the biographies of the main players. Lord Mountbatten, for instance, is from a German family that married into the British aristocracy. Mountbatten, known to friends like such as two British kings and Noel Coward, as “Dickie”, appears in some ways the embodiment of an upper-class British twit. His naval career is in some ways a disaster (such as running a ship aground and having one sunk from underneath him), but it nevertheless leads him to the position of Allied Commander for Southeast Asia during WWII. While inept in some ways, and enamored of pomp, circumstance, genealogies, and medals, he’s also quite charming and persuasive. And, lest you think him a poor cuckold, his marriage to Lady Mountbatten, Edwina, is an “open marriage” from near the beginning. Both carried on rather open affairs and had a complex relationship, to say the least. Edwina, especially in her youth, couldn’t help reminding me of Princess Diana: a rather repressed young woman whose marriage to a much more sedate man seems to have released a rather marked free-spiritedness. But like Lady Di (after demotion), Edwina found a serious and very successful calling helping out in London during the Blitz and maintaining a very active, hands-on roll in India and Pakistan dealing with the human misery found here both before and after Partition. The third person of our triumvirate, Nehru, had morphed from a young, Indian-British dandy (Cambridge and all) into a national leader. He underwent an arranged marriage and never seemed very happy about it. His wife, an apparently pious woman in contrast to his militant (if publicly restrained) atheism, died relatively young, so that Nehru was a widower at the time he came to know Edwina in the mid-1940s.

Von Tunzelmann keeps her narrative moving, weaving the personal lives of the Mountbattens and Nehru together to meet in the momentous years of 1947 and 1948 and then apart again. In addition, she keeps the big picture in focus. Her passing remarks and judgments, such as how Gandhi’s peculiarities, irrelevancies, and standing in world opinion alternately retarded and forwarded the cause of independence and Hindu-Moslem relations, leaves one wanting more, but not at all disatistfied. (Gandhi’s life and role in all of this, of course, fills volumes.) She also remarks on the irony that I noticed immediately upon coming to India: Gandhi’s likeness adorns all denominations of rupee notes. A rather ironic honor for an ascetic who thought all India should follow his austere example.

Von Tunzelmann writes with a light but perceptive hand. She deftly manages the many facts, or where evidence lacks, caution and restraint marks her prose. She also displays a light sense of irony appropriately deployed. In this description of the Indian Assembly at the turn of midnight that marked Independence, she writes:

As the chimes sounded and the unexpected blast from a conch shell startled the delegates in the chamber of the Constituent Assembly, a nation that had struggled for so many years, and sacrificed so much, was freed at last from the shackles of empire.

Yes, Britain was finally free.

She’s not being cute or coy here: her narrative has established the draining demands of Empire upon the war-impoverished Brits such that most—except Churchill and a few other die-hards—realized and wanted desperately to unload the burden that India and Empire represented.

If one enjoys reading a history that interweaves the personal into the grant narratives of empires, nations, and peoples, as many a great novel as done, then you can’t expect to find a more engrossing account of the extraordinary people and events portrayed here. An outstanding work.

Interesting note: The cover photos on my copy of the book purchased here in India shows the Mountbattens standing together with Gandhi; in the U.S. editions, they are pictured on the cover with Nehru, who's laughing.

[Smriti · Rating 4 out of 5]

loved that this book was so focused on the people who were making this history and it sort of gave us an idea of why they made the decisions they made. also loved the goss. 🤭 very easy to get into and really made me change the way I looked at certain people (I see you Mountbattens).

[Janice · Rating 4 out of 5]

God six months later and I finish the book. Serves me right to read about vicious civil wars. It was wonderful, depressing and tried to end on an optimistic yet trying to be a little realistic note. I read this on a recommendation by the New Yorker, who seemed to enjoy it except the reviewer was irritated by the author's focus on the open marriage of the last viceroy of India. The reviewer implied it was gossipy. Perhaps because I am a gossip by nature, I enjoyed that aspect, though I saw the reviewers point of view at times (it was repetitive), and I felt like the open marriage was pertinent to the topic and influenced many decisions.

Unlike many historical texts which follow events or general groups of people, von Tunzelmann's book read like a memoir or novel, focusing in detail on who she believes to be the central players of the end of India. I enjoyed this perspective because there was character development and empathy with the very flawed, complicated and conflicted last Viceroy and his wife, Nehru (first PM of India) and his family, Jinnah (first PM of Pakistan), Gandhi and Churchill and other members of the British government.

It was also interesting because it showed how all of these people tried to patch together this impossible situation. From von Tunzelmann's perspective, it was pretty impossible for the English to satisfy all the requests of the Indian people in the quick manner. And I agree, Britain had spent too many years developing and feeding factions and divisions within India for England to leave it in a manner that would facilitate a peaceful, undivided and flourishing India.

I do not feel like von Tunzelmann was of a completely post-colonial analytical perspective and at times seemed to be fond of the Mountbattens (the last viceroy), their gossip and their luxurious lifestyle a little to much. She did not go into much of the horror of the British colonialism, besides the basics and numbers of the famine, "European only" signs, and violence against the uprisings. There was no human perspective from the lower classes. This is most likely because she chose to focus on characters from the elite classes. Perhaps there are not that many narratives from the lower classes about this time period, or she just didn't want to write about it. She did however seem generally postmodern in her breaking down that part of the story into little pieces, narratives and perspectives.

Overall, it was a good and interesting overview of what happened.

[Nicholas Whyte · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1885608.html

A very readable account of the British withdrawal from India, largely from the point of view of Dickie and Edwina Mountbatten, whose papers are used extensively, though with some effort also made to include the roles of the other key political players. On Lord Mountbatten's responsibility for the horrors of partition, I found it was a useful alternative viewpoint to the hatchet-job by Andrew Roberts which I read several years ago. While I think that von Tunzelmann has become slightly beguiled by her source and gives him more benefit of the doubt than is really justifiable by her own account, though I will agree that mitigating factors include the criminally obstructive attitude of Winston Churchill to Indian independence and Mountbatten's success at persuading almost all the princely states to join the new Indian or Pakistani states - Kashmir and Hyderabad are notorious exceptions but there could have been many more. Her account of the love affair between Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten manages to be both entertaining and respectful.

Since I work more or less in the field of international conflict resolution, I am struck by how far the level of understanding of these problems has advanced since 1947. In those days the debate was shaped partly by legal rights established by history (or myth) and partly by the rather one-dimensional discourse of anti-colonialism, with very little reference to the actual wishes and needs of people on the ground. The independence of Montenegro from Serbia was achieved with no bloodshed at all, and while Kosovo and South Sudan may have their problems, they have been handled rather better than India/Pakistan (or indeed Israel/Palestine) sixty years before. The mistake that is more often made these days is wishful thinking, where international officials kid themselves that genocidal leaders like Milo��evi�� and Bashir don't really mean it, and then discover that they do; the Indian partition case was a much more straightforward mismanagement of expectations by the political leaders, particularly Mountbatten, to the point that violence became an effective and preferred mode of discourse for many actors.

One should not perhaps blame Mountbatten for failing to implement best practices which had not yet been worked out. And yet... what comes across over and over again is how Mountbatten consistently rated his own political and managerial abilities much higher than did anyone who had actually had to work with him. In the end the misjudgements which made the partition of India so much worse than it needed to have been were his misjudgements and nobody else's. So von Tunzelmann did not quite convince me, but she did entertain me.

[Subhashish Sarkar · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am a history buff and considering the subject of the book, naturally, I had some expectations. However, I was very disappointed not just by how the subject was treated but also by how ill researched the author is about the subject.
I guess it takes some time to understand for a new author that writing on history is a delicate matter. You have to be aware when you are thrusting your biased opinions about events and people. You cannot have people painted in black and white.

One has to deliver history without any bias and let people form their opinions about what transpired.

This book is a waste of time and cannot recommend this book.

[Fehmeed Rehan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very entertaining and at times heart wrenching account of Indian Independence/ Partition of Pakistan. To summarise in the words of a well read friend " Nehru's relation with Edwina Mountbatten defined the tone of future relationships that India and Pak had with each and the world at large". Overall a very interesting read.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 1 out of 5]

#Reviewing my previous Reads, #Overrated Books To Roast:

There are many ways to write about the end of the British Raj — archival deep-dives, oral histories, dusty telegrams pulled from the bowels of the India Office, or, if you’re feeling particularly cinematic, sweeping epics about leaders pacing verandas and scribbling destiny into leather-bound notebooks. And then there’s Alex von Tunzelmann’s Indian Summer, which takes the “Secret History” of an empire’s end, shoves it into a silk dressing gown, plops it on a chaise longue, and serves it up like a Vanity Fair feature that somehow wandered into the history section.

From the get-go, the title promises intrigue — “The Secret History of the End of an Empire.” You’d expect maybe classified memos, intercepted cables, or a plot twist where someone’s dog actually causes Partition.

What you get instead is the literary equivalent of a celebrity gossip column where Gandhi, Mountbatten, and Nehru are reduced to a love triangle in a particularly melodramatic season of The Crown. It’s not history as much as it is History™: the version where every player is just a little bit too glamorous, every room just a bit too perfectly lit, and every motivation suspiciously fit for a Netflix pitch deck.

Let’s start with the prose. Tunzelmann writes like she’s narrating a documentary aimed at people who think history is boring unless someone’s shirt buttons are in imminent danger of popping off. There’s a constant, breathless hum: India is hot, tempers are hotter, and apparently everyone’s irresistible to everyone else.

If you’ve ever wanted the fall of the Raj to feel like a high-society beach read, congratulations — you’ve found your book. You’ll get a Mountbatten introduction that reads like a GQ profile (“handsome, dashing, duty-bound, with just a hint of danger”) and a Lady Mountbatten who could have wandered in from a Dior ad. This isn’t so much decolonisation as it is Deco-lonisation: art deco frames for your historical selfies.

Now, about the “secret history” part. The supposed big sell here is the Mountbatten–Nehru friendship (or romance, depending on how many eyebrow-waggles you count per chapter).

Tunzelmann treats this thread like the beating heart of the subcontinent’s future. It’s juicy, yes, but also absurdly inflated — as if the entire independence movement were simply waiting on a particularly intense pen-pal exchange between a British Viceroy and an Indian statesman. One half expects the Partition borders to have been drawn on scented stationery.

The geopolitics? Oh, those are still here, but only in the way hors d’oeuvres are “here” at a cocktail party: decorative, bite-sized, and never threatening to ruin the mood.

This is where the satire writes itself. The subcontinent in 1947 was a raging cauldron of famine scars, political uprisings, religious tensions, and centuries of economic exploitation.

But in Indian Summer, the drama keeps drifting back to whether Nehru and Edwina are gazing meaningfully at each other across a crowded room, while Gandhi hovers in the corner like the eccentric uncle at a wedding who insists on doing his own catering. If history is a stage, Tunzelmann seems convinced the main act is a Merchant Ivory romance with tanks in the background.

The real danger of this approach isn’t just the frothiness — it’s that the froth comes at the expense of substance. The Partition violence, one of the largest human displacements in history, is present but weirdly muted, as if it might spoil the champagne.

You get just enough horror to maintain historical credibility, but never enough to derail the book’s central obsession: the personalities at the top. For a book claiming to uncover “secrets,” the real secret might be how deftly it keeps the British imperial apparatus from looking quite as bloody as it was.

And then there’s the voice — breezy, knowing, and just a bit too pleased with itself. Tunzelmann has that magazine-writer knack for delivering sharp one-liners, but in history, that can quickly turn into smirking over corpses.

When she’s not remarking on someone’s looks, she’s dropping a pop-culture wink, which is fine if you’re writing about the Beatles, but deeply weird when you’re talking about communal massacres. It’s as if the book can’t decide whether it’s at a war crimes tribunal or a cocktail party at Claridge’s.

It’s not all disaster. Tunzelmann does have a talent for scene-setting, and there are moments where the research glimmers — little details about who was where when, which telegram arrived too late, which meeting was so awkward you can almost feel the sweat stains forming on khadi kurtas. But these are fleeting, because the narrative keeps being yanked back to the emotional inner lives of the rich and powerful, as if they alone had the keys to the future. Millions of refugees are somewhere offstage, waiting for their cue, but we’re too busy watching Mountbatten adjust his cufflinks.

One of the more eyebrow-raising moves is the way the book handles Gandhi. He gets the mystical-treatment-with-a-side-of-eccentricity: part sage, part difficult old man, often framed as the inconvenient idealist in a room full of practical politicians.

It’s not the worst depiction, but it’s strangely disengaged from his actual politics — more about the man as an emotional figure in the Nehru–Mountbatten orbit than as the central architect (and sometimes saboteur) of India’s independence movement. Imagine writing about the Beatles and focusing mostly on the fact that George Harrison once borrowed John Lennon’s pen.

The writing also suffers from what I’d call the “colonial filter.” Even as it tries to sympathise with India, the framing is undeniably Anglo-centric: the big emotional beats happen to the British characters, the big set pieces are British-led, and the Indian leaders are compelling mainly when they’re interacting with the British.

You can feel the gravitational pull of imperial nostalgia tugging at the prose, softening edges, making the end of empire seem almost wistful rather than catastrophic for the millions whose lives were upended.

By the final chapters, the book starts to sag under the weight of its own selective lens. The Partition is there, the violence is there, but they’re like the awkward relative no one talks about at family dinners. The Mountbatten departure from India gets all the cinematic flourishes: ships, salutes, last looks over the shoulder.

History fades out not with the cries of refugees or the rumble of trains packed with the displaced, but with the polite rustle of aristocratic goodbyes. The Empire is over, darling, but wasn’t it fabulous while it lasted?

And maybe that’s the most frustrating thing about Indian Summer. It’s not that it’s inaccurate in the fact-checker’s sense — most of the events did happen. It’s that the arrangement of those events, the choice of which moments to linger on and which to brush past, creates a version of history that flatters the British exit and turns Indian independence into a costume drama. You can almost hear the producer in the background saying, “Yes, yes, but can we make it sexier?”

For casual readers who want their history with a side of soap opera, this book will hit the spot. It’s got romance, glamour, and enough political backdrop to make you feel virtuous about reading it on a beach. But if you’re looking for a serious grappling with the mess, the blood, and the chaotic realities of 1947, you’ll come away feeling like you’ve been served dessert before dinner and told the meal was complete. The real secret history here isn’t about Nehru and Edwina — it’s about how a whole empire’s collapse can be spun into a coffee-table narrative with just the right lighting.

In the end, Indian Summer is like a colonial costume ball: the clothes are beautiful, the guests are fascinating, but the building’s on fire and no one wants to talk about it.

If you squint, you can see the embers flickering at the edges, but the music’s too loud and the champagne’s still flowing. And somewhere outside, history’s waiting — unglamorous, unphotographed, and entirely uninterested in who was dancing with whom when the lights finally went out.

Give it a pass.

[Abhinav · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first thing that comes to my mind after reading Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann is that why does it take a westerner to write such an intriguing story about Indian History. The reason is beyond my comprehension till date as common sense suggests the otherwise. The Indians must be having greater access to archives, letters of iconic personalities and first hand interviews of the survivers. This I am saying as I have also read Indira by Katherine Frank and found it excellent.
The Indian Summer is based on dissecting and researching deep into the true personalities and personal lives of Mountbatten and Jawahar lal Nehru in the backdrop of Indian Independence movement, giving an microscopic and magnified version of the last few months on the British Raj in India. Although the book starts in a bit sluggish way describing in detail the lives of Mountbattens in 20s and 30s and Indian freedom struggle but one later feels its requirement in order to personify the true characters and lives of the Mountbattens and to build the story. The book catches the tempo in the later half giving not only the details of the events but also the personal conversations and discussions of the personalities we read so much about and allows us to have a closer glimpses at their personal lives. The book presents the facts not only on the basis of here says and rumors but are thoroughly researched based on the letters exchanged between personalities involved and the evidences gathered otherwise. This book unravels the humane side and peels of the layers of their character and brings to life their common and simpler side of some of the greatest personalities of India. We read about the leadership roles of Nehru, Patel and Gandhi in our history books but its very difficult to personify them with just those details. This book fills the gap between political and personal life of leaders and having human insight into their lives.
The writer though falters few times to reach conclusions based on conversations and indirect references but otherwise depicting a neutral account of the events.

[Jyotsna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Edwina had Fatima invited to tea that week, and struck up a conversation about how encouraging it had been to see Muslim and Hindu students integrating happily at Lady Irwin College. 'Don't be misled by the apparent contentment of the Muslim girls there,' Fatima told her bleakly; 'we haven't been able to start our propaganda in that college yet.'

👁️👄👁️

I am so so so enamoured by this book!

Well researched, annotated and a brutal honest deliverance on Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah, Churchill, Attlee, the Mountbattens, Patel, Bose and all the other famous people involved in the transfer of power and the partition of India.

The book is more about the circus that ensued during and before the years, especially focussing on the attitudes of the people involved.

Love the humor, the sarcasm. The best book I have read on this subject!

[Piyush Behera · Rating 5 out of 5]

An unbiased review of British India during partition.

[Louise · Rating 4 out of 5]

The charm of this book is its readability. The author begins with metaphoric images of a backwater England and a rich India... in 1600. What follows is a brief but engrossing anecdotal background to bring the reader up to the dramatic events of the summer of 1947.

The book focuses on the people who brought forth the new India, and helps you to know who they were and to care about them. For instance, the last Viceroy could have been described through a recitation of his long and prestigious lineage, but the author gives a more personal account of his youth and how his father's losses shaped his goals. The reader learns, not of the celebrated Gandhi, but of the personal man and his effect on his all too real and abused family. Edwina Mountbatten life as a playgirl gives way to a woman of strong character and compassion. Nehru's youth is well drawn, but the later years are sketched, and the portrait becomes more mythical than clear. Least described of the key players is Jinnah who stays in the background of this narrative.

The focus on people comes at the cost of other areas. For instance, the pressure from England to act quickly is covered but not in a blow by blow manner, The pressure on England from the US is mentioned but not described. It isn't it clear how all the political subdivisions were courted and won over to the new India. Who did the talking and how did they present their case to the local rulers? The issues of the partition are not explored, such that the vehemence and duration of the subsequent riots is not fully understood.

The book's high interest readability is due to its descriptions of the humanity of the key players. More nuts and bolts of how policy was developed and carried out may have created a less engrossing narrative. -

[Kasia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before reading this book I knew almost nothing about India and it seems that this book was written for the readers just like myself - its gives a nice overview of how India become independent, draws vivid portraits of some of the people involved in the process (Louis and Edwina Mountbatten, Jawaharalal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi) and shows how the independence and partition of Pakistan influenced both countries. I am a sucker for nice sentences so when I found this description of Jawaharalal Nehru on the page 4 I immediately knew I am going to enjoy this book:

Dark, sleepy, soulful eyes belied a quick wit and quicker temper. In him were all the virtues of the ancient nation, filtered through the best aspects of the British Empire: confidence, sophistication and charisma.

Sadly, some parts of the book not revolving around Nerhu, Gandhi and Mountbattens felt somewhat dry, like a boring dissertation committed without a passion, but author always would regain my interest with hilarious remark or a stunning historical detail. Overall a great read and I would recommend it to anyone who would love to learn something about India or is looking for epic love story that happened in real life.

[Kumar Anshul · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best book on the independence and partition of India and Pakistan, one can lay his hands upon. Full of clandestine anecdotes and witty exchange of dialogues between the architectures of Indian independence (Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah and the Mountbattens), this book also portrays the much controversial love affair between Pandit Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten in a much clearer light, which is sure to make you appreciate its uniqueness, sublimity and the effect it had on the political fabric of the newly independent India.

[Deepika Sekar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before the year end, I wanted to check off at least one book from my ever growing list of TBRs on the partition of India and I’m so glad I went with this one. It is by no means comprehensive, but oh was it eminently readable. I did not once feel like I was reading non-fiction – the narration is utterly compelling.

The book, while it recounts numerous events of interest, is really about three people – the Mountbattens and Jawaharlal Nehru. The partition itself is told through what the Mountbattens had to go through, and while that may be limited, I personally didn’t have any problem as this is the first book I’m reading on the subject. The chapter on Kashmir is especially outstanding.

While I appreciate Tunzelmann’s fairness and honesty in enumerating the horrors of the partition, I do not necessarily agree with her justification for why Britain could not have done anything more-

The British government was in the middle of its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. There was very little popular understanding of what was going on in the Punjab, and even less interest. The British had recently emerged from six years of war. Hundreds of thousands had been killed, and millions expended. Their normal industries had been battered, their towns destroyed, their families broken up and stuck back together. Still they languished under the strictures of rationing, which were getting tighter, not looser. To these ordinary people, the Empire was a superfluous accoutrement.

The way I see it, any half decent human being would have tried to stop what was happening. That the British Government, after milking the sub-continent for decades, refused to send over troops and chose to do nothing but get out of the way of Indians is just hideous, whichever way one can look at it.

Tunzelmann however blames the British for stoking communal feelings in India. She points out that Churchill described Hindu–Muslim antagonism as ‘a bulwark of British rule in India’, and noted that, were it to be resolved, their concord would result in ‘the united communities joining in showing us the door’.

I also have to extract this rather long paragraph for it beautifully summarises how the British changed the Indian psyche.

Undoubtedly, the Raj did plenty to encourage identity politics. The British found it easier to understand their vast domain if they broke it down into manageable chunks, and by the 1930s they had become anxious to ensure that each chunk was given a full and fair hearing. But picking a few random unelected lobbyists, based on what the British thought was a cross-section of Indian varieties, was not a reliable way to represent 400 million people. India’s population could not be divided into neat boxes labelled by religion and cross-referenced with social position. India was an amorphous mass of different cultures, lifestyles, traditions and beliefs. After so many centuries of integration and exchange, these were not distinct, but rippled into each other, creating a web of cultural hybrids and compromises. A Sunni Muslim from the Punjab might have more in common with a Sikh than he did with a Shia Muslim from Bengal; a Shia might regard a Sufi Muslim as a heretic; a Sufi might get on better with a Brahmin Hindu than with a Wahhabi Muslim; a Brahmin might feel more at ease with a European than he would with another Hindu who was an outcaste. When the British started to define ‘communities’ based on religious identity and attach political representation to them, many Indians stopped accepting the diversity of their own thoughts and began to ask themselves in which of the boxes they belonged. At the same time, Indian politicians began to focus on religion as a central part of their policies – defining themselves by what they were, and even more by what they were not.

I have also begun to appreciate just how strong a moral force Gandhi was (his many foibles notwithstanding). After he started his fast in Calcutta, the whole city quietened within a week.

‘In the Punjab we have 55,000 soldiers and large-scale rioting on our hands’, an awestruck Mountbatten wrote. ‘In Bengal our forces consist of one man, and there is no rioting.’

Gandhi would later fast so India would unfreeze the 550 million rupees it owed to Pakistan. Patel had frozen the money citing that it would be used to sponsor terrorism against India.

The cabinet, though reluctant, could not disobey a direct request from the ailing Mahatma, whose political influence at last matched his moral influence.

This would be the last of the Mahatma’s fasts for he was shot immediately thereafter.

Crimson blood spread across Gandhi’s white shawl, and the news spread through Delhi nearly as fast. Betty Hutheesing had gone on to a friend’s house, and asked her Muslim driver to take her home. The driver began to tremble and could hardly start the car. ‘My God, I hope it wasn’t a Muslim,’ he said. It was not. The murderer was Nathuram Godse, a Bombay Brahmin and member of the fundamentalist Hindu Mahasabha, an organization linked to the same RSS that Patel had recently endorsed so glowingly.

For someone who had no idea who Edwina Mountbatten was, this book was a real revelation. I didn’t have the slightest clue that she had so much compassion, nay love, for Indians.

A sure sign of her effectiveness was that the Governor General’s aides-de-camp began to try to avoid being on her staff. Anyone required to serve with Edwina would have to help with a variety of gruesome tasks in unpleasant locations. She stopped her car when she saw injured or dead people, got out, dodged bullets, and retrieved their bodies to take them to hospitals or morgues. She also ordered her husband’s personal bodyguards to forget about him and patrol the hospitals, following a number of unspeakable attacks on helpless patients as they lay in the wards.

That she spent countless waking hours helping victims of the partition and visiting camps is perhaps Britain’s only saving grace.

Reading this book, I better understand why Edwina meant so much to Nehru and Nehru to her. Their love for each other is near spiritual if that’s even a thing.

Edwina was also a huge influence in Mountbatten’s life. It is clear that it was her ideals that shaped Mountbatten’s views and made him support anti colonialist sentiments.

When Attlee vacillated and Churchill blustered over setting a date for Burmese self-government, it was Mountbatten who tried to persuade them to set a firm timetable for the handover. It was Mountbatten, too, who had opened negotiations with Aung San; it was Mountbatten who had wanted to negotiate with Ho Chi Minh; it was Mountbatten who had persuaded the Dutch to negotiate with Sukarno in Indonesia. In all of these matters, he was led by his wife. Referring to Indonesia, he admitted: ‘Nobody gave me an idea of the strength of the nationalist movements. Edwina was the first person to give me an inkling of what was going on.’ From then on, said Driberg, ‘she showed an instant strong sympathy with any Asian nationalist who was being oppressed by some American-backed right-wing regime.’

For someone who was so deeply in love with Edwina, Mountbatten is gracious of the Edwina-Nehru affair. To his daughter, he writes,

‘Please keep this to yourselves but she and Jawarhalal [sic] are so sweet together’, he wrote to his elder daughter, Patricia. ‘They really dote on each other in the nicest way and Pammy and I are doing everything we can to be tactful and help. Mummy has been incredibly sweet lately and we’ve been such a happy family.’

Later to Edwina, he would write,

‘I’m glad you realize that I know and have always understood the very special relationship between Jawaha and you – made the easier by my fondness and admiration for him and by the remarkably lucky fact that among my many defects God did not add jealousy in any shape or form’, he wrote to her.

In Nehru’s funeral, ‘The face most contorted by emotion was not an Indian face,’ remembered Marie Seton, ‘but that of the once blithe Louis Mountbatten

For all his colossal blunders and the madness that they unleashed, I can’t help feel bad about his assassination. He is something, isn’t he?

[Jeeva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beautiful insights into the human lives of the most powerful politicians of the era. How their personal lives entwined with their political and how well they managed to walk a tightrope. Lucid narration with a fantastic eye for detail. Strong recommendation.

[Himanshu Modi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Man... why is history not taught like this? Sure, leave out the lurid bits. The rest of it could have been in history books. Oh yeah... then all our politico leaders would have been human beings, and not Bahubali's they all seem to be. That, if anything, is the biggest takeaway from the book.

In the current political climate, it is anyways fashionable to be either anti-Nehru and anti-Gandhi. Or if you are that, you by default also support fascism and dictatorships.

What such polarizing opinions completely miss is that the Independence struggle was not about individuals or parties lobbying for power. Nehru's or Gandhi's or Patel's or Bose's maneuvering was not a game of one-upmanship. They all wanted Swaraj. It was in the details where they differed from each other. No one wanted violence or millions of people dead. But then Britishers did not care, and Indian leaders could never imagine the scale at which violence would be unleashed.

The story-format of this history also helps in reminding us readers how much in life is a series of one-thing-led-to-another. History books, with it's dry chronological record, often lose sight of the chain of events that lead to watershed moments in history. These history books, therefore, simply don't move and galvanize the reader the way a story can. Jallianwala Bagh, a event we all agree was horrific, has never turned me cold to my bones the way hearing about it in this book did. That, is the power of stories.

Besides the history lessons, the very human portrayals of two key players of Indian independence movement - Nehru and Gandhi - was very satisfying to read. Gandhi, with his world altering philosophies must have been infuriating to deal with. And he was undeniably astute. His thinking on the declaration of non-violence by Jinnah was fiendish. And that was just one example. The true secrets that the people who worked closely with gandhi must have known... Nehru, on the other hand - the book is not an exposition on his heroic exploits the way our history books were - but I hope it does serve to temper the anti-Nehru sentiments a lot of people fester. Let's all agree - he was against fascism, and he wanted a secular India. Nehru's first position was a united India. Once Jinnah and Britishers employed divide-and-rule in full force, and a united India became untenable, a secular India was the way to go. I don't agree that Patel's hard-lined Hindu-only-state was ever going to be workable. Iron-man Patel's contribution in uniting India is expressly mentioned in the book. The Statue of Unity is a fitting tribute to him. But he does come across as rather dictatorial. Sure, a bit of that iron hand was required at that time, but the line of benevolent dictatorial leadership is hard to toe. It's only a step away from full blown fascism. We should all remember that too. I might be at the risk of being labled Congressi - of course... political climate and all.

Still, I do wish the book covered a bit more of Patel. I will go elsewhere for that itch.

What I did get, a bit unexpectedly, was far too much of Mountbattens. I found that amusing for most parts. They led rather colorful lives. If I had known the book gave as many pages to Dickie and Edwena as it did... I might have been dissuaded from picking up the book. So I am glad I didn't know that going in. For one, heir story is entertaining. And it ties back nicely to the British royalty and the true antagonist of the tale - Churchill.

The exploration of Nehru-Edwena-Dickie triangle... was very, very sensitively handled. It's a very compelling love-triangle. Seriously, Yash Chopra does not even hold a candle to von Tunzelmann as far as depicting romantic complications go. Did I want this much footage given to the topic? No. Am I complaining. Again, no. It was infact rather good, to see this side of Nehru and Mountbattens. In popular passtime of demonizing national figureheads - it's common to snigger about Nehru's affair with Edwena. But to understand that these giants of history had their own passions and affections intertwined with the fate of nations... I am glad that I don't have to deal. The bit about Edwena deciding not to stay back after Dickie had to go back to UK after his term as governor general... that's some decision to make! I never thought I'd say this, but I daresay it was a moving love story.

See, I am no expert on Indian history so I have not vetted the accuracy of the anecdotes and details here. But as it stands, the history is very balanced and there are no elements of needless dramatizing. When a history book comes across as not having an agenda, there's little reason to perpetrate lies. And a balanced history book which is as entertaining as this was... I need more of them.

[Gaurav · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written overview of the political and personal forces that lead to independence, partition and war between Pakistan and India, focusing particularly on the relationship between Jawaharlal Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten.

What particularly pleased me about this book was its value use as an 'addendum' to Freedom at Midnight. "Freedom" follows Mohandas Gandhi and Louis Mountbatten through 1947-48; Tunzelmann focuses instead on Nehru, Edwina Mountbatten, and (to a far lesser degree) Jinnah. Taken together, these two books complement each other beautifully. Tunzelmann also points out Mountbatten's exaggerations, extremely helpful if (like me) you took "Freedom at Midnight" at face value.

I'd like to mention especially the biographies of all the major players at the start of the book - they are wonderfully concise, and skip historical details in order to quickly provide a flavour of the character described. From my readins of previous biographies of Gandhi, I can confirm that although they skip many of the key events in his life, they yet manage to give the reader a deep, enduring impression of his personality, history and circumstance of Gandhi, normally only accessible to those who have waded through the thickest of his biographies.

My biggest disappointment was the focus on Nehru and the Mountbattens; I was mislead by the title to suppose that the author meant to focus on Partition as seen from both sides of the new borders.

I'd've rated this book a 3/5 or 3.5/5.0 if it weren't for the author's sharp and witty prose, which was a delight to read. Even if you're familiar with the history of this period, the writing ensures that this book is something you must try at least once.

[E.T. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an engrossing read focusing on the period around which India achieved independence. This was my zillionth read on the subject and yet ended up learning a few new things from fresh perspectives. To her credit, she stuck to her facts too.
However, there were a few problems.
a) The book talks a lot about the Mountbattens. Firstly, Lord Mountbatten was inconsequential to India before he arrived as our last Viceroy. Why should I read about his personal life in such detail ? And even worse, approx 20-25% of the book was on Edwina Mountbatten.
b) The book seemed eager to tell a simplistic story at times and attach labels to people - so Bose is wrongly called an extreme Right-wing person (he was an ardent socialist). Again this was maybe a colonial hangover of calling everyone anti-British in the WW2 fascist or just plainly stupid.
c) Patel is called an Islamophobe. Firstly, the most bogus and misused term in the world is "Islamophobia". Secondly, before applying a label justify it by citing the actions of the labelled.
On the whole, I think Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition by Hajari was a better book released in the 21st century on the same topic.

[Lilisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and detailed historical account of the end of the British Empire in India (which included West Pakistan and East Pakistan or Bangladesh as we know it today) and the bloodbath that heralded Pakistan and India's independence in 1947. Louis "Dickie" Mountbatten and his wife Edwina's lives were intrinsically intertwined with the political upheaval. As Viceroy of India and then Governor General, Dickie worked front and center on behalf of the British government - as negotiator, facilitator and mediator, among other things. On stage with the legendary figures of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and scores of others, the long-time British strategy of divide and rule in India played out as the struggle for one country vs two or three or more unfolded. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and the rulers of principalities fought to have their own country or fiefdom setting the stakes dangerously high with unrealistic expectations, conflicting goals and the struggle for power. An absorbing and intimate portrayal of the character and personality that was Mountbatten and his relationship with his wife Edwina and her work and relationships with several, including Nehru. A book well worth the read, particularly for historical buffs.