- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
They were born worlds apart: Winston Churchill to Britain’s most glamorous aristocratic family, Mohandas Gandhi to a pious middle-class household in a provincial town in India. Yet Arthur Herman reveals how their lives and careers became intertwined as the twentieth century unfolded. Both men would go on to lead their nations through harrowing trials and two world wars—and become locked in a fierce contest of wills that would decide the fate of countries, continents, and ultimately an empire.
Gandhi & Churchill reveals how both men were more alike than different, and yet became bitter enemies over the future of India, a land of 250 million people with 147 languages and dialects and 15 distinct religions—the jewel in the crown of Britain’s overseas empire for 200 years.
Over the course of a long career, Churchill would do whatever was necessary to ensure that India remain British—including a fateful redrawing of the entire map of the Middle East and even risking his alliance with the United States during World War Two.
Mohandas Gandhi, by contrast, would dedicate his life to India’s liberation, defy death and imprisonment, and create an entirely new kind of political movement: satyagraha, or civil disobedience. His campaigns of nonviolence in defiance of Churchill and the British, including his famous Salt March, would become the blueprint not only for the independence of India but for the civil rights movement in the U.S. and struggles for freedom across the world.
Now master storyteller Arthur Herman cuts through the legends and myths about these two powerful, charismatic figures and reveals their flaws as well as their strengths. The result is a sweeping epic of empire and insurrection, war and political intrigue, with a fascinating supporting cast, including General Kitchener, Rabindranath Tagore, Franklin Roosevelt, Lord Mountbatten, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. It is also a brilliant narrative parable of two men whose great successes were always haunted by personal failure, and whose final moments of triumph were overshadowed by the loss of what they held most dear.
Historian Herman (How the Scots Invented the Modern World) paints a forceful portrait of the emergence of the postcolonial era in the fateful contrast-and surprising affinities-between two historic figures on opposite sides of the struggle for Indian independence. Churchill and Gandhi, both elites in their respective milieus, began their careers with remarkably similar perspectives and trod intersecting paths across India, South Africa and England. They shared an obsession with physical courage (albeit channeled in different ways) that tied conceptions of masculinity to larger ideas of racial identity and moral superiority-and India loomed large in their triumphal careers, ultimately frustrating both men's idealism. While Herman's dual biography artfully depicts the personalities of the two men, he gives short shrift to the more complex forces of British imperial decline, Indian nationalism and the emergence of the postwar order (for example, Herman helpfully but also too neatly explains the dogged centrality of India and the British raj in Churchill's worldview as an act of filial loyalty to his beloved father) But the author also takes careful account of the constellation of modern and antimodern currents of late Victorian thought in situating these vastly influential figures in a fascinating narrative of their times. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Herman -- the author of How the Scots Invented the Modern World -- has a genius for compelling historical narrative, and he is as generous to the virtues as he is clear-eyed to the failings of his two principals. Together these qualities make his book the kind that keeps you reading well past bedtime, and overrun your lunch hour.
It is also a book that has a surprising effect, which is that if you had preconceptions of the Gandhi-good, Churchill-sometimes-not-so-good variety, you might turn the last page with a sense of having had your notions inverted. It seems almost sacrilegious to think that a vegetarian lover of peace, a man of deep spirituality, pacifism, a fighter for justice, a Saint Theresa to the poor of India and the victims of its civil strife, a man described by India's last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, as "the equal of Buddha and Jesus Christ," should come out of Herman's scrupulous portrait in rather equivocal fashion.
But so he does. That he was sincere in his principles, and had enormous courage, there is no doubt. But when he lived in South Africa and campaigned for the rights of Indian immigrants there, he did so on frankly racist grounds; he wanted Indians and whites to be equals and segregated from blacks; he repeatedly wrote and said that it was an insult to Indians to be placed on the same footing as black people.
In India during the three decades of campaigning for independence from Britain, Gandhi was indifferent to the real possibility of civil mayhem such as indeed occurred when the Raj ended. He regarded it as a price worth paying for the end of British rule, because any price was worth paying, even the slaughter and displacement of millions. In a similar vein, in the midst of the titanic struggle between the Allies and the Axis powers, Gandhi worked against British anti-Japanese efforts in India and Burma, calling for the complete and immediate withdrawal of British forces. He viewed Japanese occupation with indifference, believing that if everyone would follow his example of nonviolent noncooperation, the Japanese would be forced to leave.
He had learned long before, in his South African campaigns of nonviolent resistance against immigrant registration laws, how unworkable such campaigns are. But the call for them gave Gandhi the moral high ground, and he used it to effect, both good and ill; Herman shows that he single-handedly derailed the British plan for a federal India that would have kept it united and avoided the hideous slaughter of the India-Pakistan partition.
And as this portrait of the tainted saint with his spinning wheel and stubbornly holy lifestyle unfolds, Herman traces the controversial career of the ambitious, bumptious, self-serving, mercurial Winston Churchill, from arrogant young soldier in India to the bulldog statesman who by eloquence, stubbornness, and power of leadership resisted Hitler. For the two years that Britain stood alone against the conqueror -- for some months in the summer of 1940 winning a new Battle of Thermopylae, the Royal Air Force's celebrated Few holding the pass against the accumulated might of Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe -- the single steel thread that held the defense together was Churchill's will.
From his childhood years, when his father, Lord Randolph Churchill (callously indifferent to his doting son), was secretary of state for India, until the day of his death over 70 years later, Churchill believed that Britain must do everything to retain possession of India, its empire's jewel. "India" in administrative and imperial terms meant a vast swathe of the world from Aden on the Arabian Peninsula to Burma and Singapore. He rightly foresaw that the end of British rule there would mean the end of empire itself. He believed, with complete sincerity and a modicum of justice, that British rule was civilizing and positive. When Indian independence happened he accepted its inevitability; but he believed that it could have been avoided if his own earlier plans for a new constitutional settlement had been accepted.
That was not a belief the Gandhi could ever have shared. Gandhi's view, that India must gain independence at any price, was not simply an outlook natural to a patriot and the son of a great and ancient civilization, but the conviction of a converted zealot. As Herman shows, for a considerable slice of Gandhi's life, indeed right to the margin of middle age, he was passionately pro-British. He believed in the ideal enunciated by Lord Macaulay, of a people "Indian in appearance, British in heart and education." He described himself as British, qualified as a barrister in London's Inns of Court, wore a suit and tie, was a devotee of Ruskin's writings as much as he later was of Tolstoy's, and generally aspired to the condition and status of an English gentleman.
With such a background it was inevitable that the reaction should be complete. When he turned against Britain his rejection was total. He adopted the dress and lifestyle of a wandering holy man; Churchill called him a "fakir" and a "fanatic." And in a sense he was both.
Although Herman's narrative suggests the fate of India turned on a personal clash between the two men, it was of course a larger battle between many different camps, and the two men in question only met once, in the first decade of the 20th century, when Gandhi (in suit and tie) led a delegation to London from South Africa, asking for equal status for Indians and segregation from the blacks, and Churchill was deputy to the colonial secretary. Churchill was sympathetic; but the situation of Indians in the former Boer republics lately conquered by Britain (because gold had been found in great quantities there) did not allow principle to trump Realpolitik. It almost never does.
This is an instructive book in many ways and in many of its details. Just one telling example suffices to illustrate how: in a despatch from the North-West Frontier, after the Malakand campaign in which he took part, Churchill wrote: "Civilisation is face to face with militant Mohammedanism." The year was 1897; Malakand is one of the places where today's Al-Qaeda and Taliban hide out and cross into strife-torn Afghanistan from Pakistan.
Exhilarating all the way through, Herman's book is also very poignant at the end. Both men came to think that they had failed after all, the one in losing India and the other in realizing too late the extent of the price paid in gaining it. --A. C. Grayling
A. C. Grayling is an author, playwright, reviewer, cultural journalist, and professor of philosophy at London University. Among his many books are Towards the Light of Liberty and The Choice of Hercules. His play Grace was recently performed in New York City.
Excerpted from Gandhi & Churchill by Arthur Herman Copyright © 2008 by Arthur Herman. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
1 The Churchills and the Raj 15
2 Lord Randolph Takes Charge 35
3 Illusions of Power: The Gandhis, India, and British Rule 51
4 Awakening: Gandhi in London and South Africa, 1888-1895 69
5 Awakening II: Churchill in India, 1896-1899 91
6 Men at War, 1899-1900 111
7 Converging Paths, 1900-1906 129
8 Brief Encounter, 1906-1909 148
9 Break Point, 1909-1910 163
10 Parting of the Ways, 1911-1914 181
11 A Bridgehead Too Far, 1914-1915 198
12 Gandhi's War, 1915-1918 215
13 Bloodshed, 1919-1920 239
14 Noncooperation, 1920-1922 261
15 Reversal of Fortunes, 1922-1929 283
16 Eve of Battle, 1929 309
17 Salt, 1930 332
18 Round Tables and Naked Fakirs, 1930-1931 347
19 Contra Mundum, 1931-1932 364
20 Last Ditch, 1932-1935 382
21 Against the Current, 1936-1938 402
22 Edge of Darkness, 1938-1939 427
23 Collision Course, 1939-1940 443
24 From Narvik to Bardoli, April 1940-December 1941 457
25 Debacle, 1941-1942 472
26 Quit India, 1942 488
27 Showdown, 1943 503
28 Triumph and Tragedy, 1943-1945 517
29 Walk Alone, 1945-1947 540
30 Death in the Garden, 1947-1948 563
31 Lion in Twilight, 1948-1965 588
Conclusion: Triumph and Tragedy 606
Significant Dates 611
Glossary of Terms 615
Acknowledgments 619
Notes 623
Reference List 673
Index 687
Photograph credits 719
Q: It’s amazing that no one has written a book like this before, about two of the most universally admired icons in the world: Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill. What inspired you to take the subject up?
A: I wanted to write a book about two great men, who were obviously different but who are also alike in so many ways. It was important to show how their lives and careers intersected at so many points, and how they ended up clashing over war and peace; empire and civilization; political independence and moral responsibility; the meaning of freedom and truth; even over the existence of God, for more than forty years. Obviously these are still important issues, which is why I think the book is so relevant today. It’s really about what constitutes leadership in a democratic society: not just for Britain and India, which is of course the world’s largest democracy, but for America in an election year.
Q: Gandhi & Churchill certainly has an epic feel. Sometimes while reading it I felt like I was watching a film by David Lean. Did that epic quality come to you from the material?
A: Absolutely! You have to remember that although Gandhi and Churchill only met physically once, their paths crossed again and crossed again all over the globe, from London and South Africa and India and back to London. In fact, I discovered that during the Boer War in 1899 they literally passed yards from each other on the battlefield.
Q: I don’t think many people realize Gandhi was a war veteran.
A: Yes, and even won a medal for bravery! So here you have two men, whose lives are intertwined through the Boer War, through two world wars, through the Great Depression and the independence movement in India, right down to Gandhi’s assassination in 1948. Two men who lived with tragedy and failure; in fact, failed so many times they should have given up long before they became famous and inspiring leaders. But two men who through sheer will power and a belief in humanity managed to achieve what they most wanted–but at the cost of what they most treasured.
I thought it was an incredible story, and I wanted my readers to know not just the details, but to realize how the career of one had a direct influence on the career of the other over the years--sometimes in unexpected ways.
Q: Can you give a quick example?
A: Sure. Take Churchill’s decision to launch the Gallipoli invasion during World War One. It turned out to be a costly blunder in lives and treasure, it poisoned relations between Britain and Australia (as anyone knows who has seen the Mel Gibson movie), and Gallipoli nearly ruined Churchill’s career. But it was the making of Gandhi’s, because Britain’s war against Turkey, a Moslem country, roused the political consciousness of India’s forty million Muslims about Western imperialism: and Gandhi was able to build his first important political alliance in India with those same Indian Muslims. The same thing happens again and again, as I explain in the book.
‘What if’s’ abound, as well. For example, what if Churchill’s political party, the Conservatives, had won the general election in 1929? Churchill would have been Secretary of State for India and there would have been no Gandhi salt march to the sea (Churchill would have arrested him the moment he left his ashram), no iconic image of Gandhi making salt to broadcast around the world and to galvanize the Indian nationalist movement.
And what if Churchill had given up his battle against the Government of India Bill giving India dominion status in 1931, instead of dragging the battle out for another four years? India might have been a self-governing country in 1937 instead of in 1947, and there might have been no need for partition of India and Pakistan–and millions of lives might have saved, including Gandhi’s.
Q: What surprised you most in researching the book?
A: I guess the most surprising discovery was how long Gandhi remained loyal to the ideal of the British Empire, even in India. Until he was well into his forties, at times he and Churchill almost sound the same. It was only when Gandhi became convinced that British intransigence left India no choice but full independence that he turned to civil disobedience. Yet, as I show in the book, non-violence largely failed as a political tactic. But it did succeed in undermining Britons’ confidence in their mandate to rule in India. Everyone’s, that is, except Churchill!
Q: You say they fought for forty years but only met once. Do you think they might have found common ground on India and other issues, if they had met more often?
A: I think so. They certainly tried to meet. Gandhi wanted to meet with Churchill, his most bitter foe, when he visited London in 1931–but it didn’t happen. Churchill wanted to go to India personally as prime minister in 1942 to negotiate a final settlement on India with Gandhi and the other nationalist leaders–but the fall of Singapore prevented it from happening. And Gandhi sent one of his saddest letters from prison to Churchill in 1944, in hopes of opening a personal dialogue–but it never arrived.
Sometimes you have to believe in destiny, or perhaps fate. I think destiny meant for these two men, who might have been such powerful allies, to be enemies: and so they have passed on to us as virtually complementary figures:
• One the great war leader, the other the great apostle of non-violence.
• One the symbol of Western civilization at its most optimistic and robust; the other of our multi-cultural global community.
• One the advocate of liberty as the most precious legacy of the West; the other of freedom as God’s gift to all human beings.
So in the end, it’s the story of the choices we face in the new global future–the future these two men did so much to bring about.
Anonymous
Posted June 21, 2008
This is a long but well-written volume on two of the most significant figures in the 20th century. It is a balanced narrative that analyzes both Gandhi and Churchill in an even-handed way. If you know something of British history and Churchill's life, yet have inevitable gaps in your knowledge (as I do), this book does very well at tying together a very complex fifty years in the history of India and India as part of the British Empire. Herman makes a good case that both Gandhi and Churchill had ultimate goals that clashed and, ironically, that both had to confront failure: Churchill in having to witness the beginning of the end of the British empire--Gandhi in seeing the birth of an independent India that did not transcend its religious and ethnic divisions.
3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.SKEPTICALIDEALIST
Posted September 28, 2009
WOW...SOMEONE SAID"SHOW MWE A HERO AND I WILL SHOW YOU A TRAGEDY"..THIS BOOK HAS 2 STRONG AND PASSIONATE HEROES WHO GIVE THEIR LIVES TO ENHANCE THEIR DREAMS OF A BETTER WORLD FOR THEIR COUNTRYMEN..THE AUTHOR VIVIDLY SHARES THE HUMAN SIDE OF CHURCHILL AND GANDI..THEIR SUCCESSES AND FAILURES ARE PUT IN A PERSPECTIVE THAT GAVE ME A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF TODAYS POLITICAL WORLD..SOMEHOW I DONT FEEL ENCOURAGED W MY POLITICIANS AFTER READING THIS BOOK..MANY OF THE LEADERS WE HAVE MODELED INTO "HEROES"FROM EARLIER DAYS WERE SIMPLY MEN AND WOMEN WHO SACRIFICED THEIR LIVES FOR A BIGGER MEANING OF LIFE..CERTAINLY I LEARNED MORE ABOUT INDIA AND ENGLAND AS WELL...GREAT BOOK..
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted June 13, 2008
This book is definitely not for the casual reader but great for history buffs. In this book you get a lot of information including an bio of Gandhi, a bio of Churchill, and tons of information about India's battle for independence, WW2, the formation of Pakistan, and the problems between the Muslims and the Hindus. I learned a lot.
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.pgp
Posted January 19, 2012
This is a readable history of the lives of Gandhi and Churchill in relation to their efforts on opposite sides of the question of independence for India. It's no hagiography of either one, as it amply documents their many mistakes and missed opportunities to create a better outcome than the chaotic, deadly one that actually occurred. Though it is sympathetic to both men on a human level, you'll come away thinking less of both, I suspect. i found it well worth my time, and it has triggered an ongoing interest in modern India.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted September 29, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 2, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 28, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted June 30, 2009
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted December 28, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted March 24, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 9, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted April 30, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 26, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 20, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 28, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Overview
In this fascinating and meticulously researched book, bestselling historian Arthur Herman sheds new light on two of the most universally recognizable icons of the twentieth century, and reveals how their forty-year rivalry sealed the fate of India and the British Empire.They were born worlds apart: Winston Churchill to Britain’s most glamorous aristocratic family, Mohandas Gandhi to a pious middle-class household in a provincial town in India. Yet Arthur Herman reveals how their lives and careers became intertwined as the twentieth century unfolded. Both men would go on to lead their nations through harrowing trials and two world wars—and become locked in a fierce contest of wills that ...