Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age | 
 enlarge | Author: Arthur Herman
Publisher: Bantam
Category: Book
List Price: $30.00
Buy Used: $17.00
You Save: $13.00 (43%)
New (42) Used (20) from $17.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  9 reviews
Sales Rank: 683
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 736
Shipping Weight (lbs): 2.5
Dimensions (in): 9.2 x 6.1 x 1.6
ISBN: 0553804634
Dewey Decimal Number: 325.54094109041
EAN: 9780553804638
ASIN: 0553804634
Publication Date: April 29, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: New in New jacket First Edition. New, unread book.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In this fascinating and meticulously researched book, bestselling historian Arthur Herman sheds new light on two of the most universally recognizable icons of the twentieth century, and reveals how their forty-year rivalry sealed the fate of India and the British Empire.
They were born worlds apart: Winston Churchill to Britain’s most glamorous aristocratic family, Mohandas Gandhi to a pious middle-class household in a provincial town in India. Yet Arthur Herman reveals how their lives and careers became intertwined as the twentieth century unfolded. Both men would go on to lead their nations through harrowing trials and two world wars—and become locked in a fierce contest of wills that would decide the fate of countries, continents, and ultimately an empire.
Gandhi & Churchill reveals how both men were more alike than different, and yet became bitter enemies over the future of India, a land of 250 million people with 147 languages and dialects and 15 distinct religions—the jewel in the crown of Britain’s overseas empire for 200 years.
Over the course of a long career, Churchill would do whatever was necessary to ensure that India remain British—including a fateful redrawing of the entire map of the Middle East and even risking his alliance with the United States during World War Two.
Mohandas Gandhi, by contrast, would dedicate his life to India’s liberation, defy death and imprisonment, and create an entirely new kind of political movement: satyagraha, or civil disobedience. His campaigns of nonviolence in defiance of Churchill and the British, including his famous Salt March, would become the blueprint not only for the independence of India but for the 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.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 4 more reviews...
 Lack of Understanding of Gandhi July 1, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
Arthur Herman took up a challenging task to write the comparative histories of two men who influenced the lives of millions of people living around the world, each in a different way. He did not quite succeed in his task. Let me explain below.
I believe that one cannot write a revealing history of India without being touched by its soul. Most books on Indian history, written by people from West, are good at documenting the chronology of events, battles, treaties and the like but they are not capable of giving a living portrait of the participants or driving forces behind the events since the writers have not opened their intellect to recognize India's soul. The author is no different. He shows that ignorance by referring to Gita as a scripture that preaches violence.
Churchill and Gandhi are not comparable people. The former was a bigoted megalomaniac who got stuck with the nineteenth century racial outlook and could neither recognize nor accept the changing world. He had no hesitation to continue to subject an alien people to the rule of his own government for the material benefits that it would derive, he would neither agree to its end even when the rest of the world was moving into a new era. Where as, Gandhi was a spiritual humanist, believed in reaching out to his friends and enemies alike through peaceful negotiations and viewed at all human beings deserving of justice and humanity. Gandhi wanted love and justice for the entire human race and he saw shedding blood as inhuman and anti-divine while Churchill's vision was that the justice and rights were to be limited to a privileged few even if it is to be enforced through violence.
Gandhi was a Westerner in thoughts and beliefs in his early years, during his stay in South Africa and until around the early twenties. Therefore the author is able to understand Gandhi and successfully presents a clear portrayal of the spiritual journey during the period. At this time Gandhi himself was under delusion that British respected the ideal of human rights and justice for of everyone which was indeed true in England. Truth was different in India. The colonial bureaucrats who ran India were ruthless despots who violently enforced their will on a helpless Indian population.
The evolution of Gandhi from a loyal British subject towards some one who would demand total cut off of British connection with India began upon his arrival in India in 1915, was accelerated by the Jallianwallahbag massacre by Dyer and was complete by the Second Round Table Conference. From that time onwards, Gandhi becomes a stranger to the author. Like other Westerners, the author fails in his comprehension of Gandhi during this period until his death in 1948. The narrative after the Second Round Table Conference looses objectivity and it becomes a tirade of Western incomprehension of Gandhi, the freedom movement and the other participants especially during the war period.
Scripps mission to discuss self government in India was initiated by Churchill to get Roosevelt off his back. Roosevelt was asking Churchill dissolve the empire and let Indians rule themselves in view of Universal human rights. Churchill put a poison pill in the Scripps offer in the name of "opt-out clause" by which Muslims, Sikhs, Princes, Anglo-Indians and whoever wanted could have their own "home land". This was anathema to Gandhi who saw India as one entity and he vetoed it. Scripps being naive of the situation was upset with Gandhi while Churchill got what he wanted - kill any further talk of Indian independence and get Roosevelt off his back. Reaction of Viceroy Linlithgow towards Gandhi's Quit India movement in 1942 was to imprison the entire Congress leadership through the duration of the war and cultivate Jinnah and Pakistan as a potential British military outpost in the event that they were forced to vacate India. By the end of the war Labor won the elections in '45 but Churchill, Linlithgow and Wavell had done enough damage that partition of India had become inevitable. Author did not recognize the responsibility of these three men for the millions of deaths, refugee movements, legacy of hostilities in the subcontinent which haunts us till today and the evolution of Pakistan as a source of global terrorism today. In the discussion on Kashmir the author provides misleading statements. The tribal mercenaries under the guidance of Pakistan army attacking Kashmir and looting is well documented, I do not understand where the author got the idea that it was a concoction by Nehru. If author is indeed right, Mozaffirabad and Gigit would be under Indian rule today. By openly showing his dislike of Mountbatten the author shows his biases and fails in his task as an objective historian.
Author's narrative on Churchill was revealing in the sense that we are able to understand the psyche of a man who would refuse to acknowledge the human rights of four hundred million people, continue to live in the nineteenth century outlook, would cause the division of a country on religious basis, create millions of refugees, deaths and human suffering and a legacy of unending hostilities between the divided people.
I am puzzled by the inclusion in the reference list the discredited book, James Mill's "History of British India", an abusive, ignorant and slanderous write up on India and Indian people which no contemporary Indic scholar would use as a reference. All I can hope is that the author's understanding of India and Indians did not come from that book.
You first must understand "Gandhian Thought" June 23, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
If you wish to understand Gandhi's life, then you need to understand "Gandhian philosophy" (I quoted because Gandhi never liked that title). Gandhi's ideas and principles guide his life (his life was his message) and so if you are to understand his life and acts, then you must understand its guiding light. I cannot stress this enough because "Gandhian thought" and thus his acts are largely foreign to Western minds (aside from Tolstoy and a few others)and so his acts may be difficult to understand without a proper philosophical background.
I suggest that the reader understand Gandhi's basic philosophical ideas before reading this biography.
 A TALE OF TWO GIANTS May 31, 2008
7 out of 7 found this review helpful
Writing a dual biography of two political giants is not an easy task.One is reminded about the outstanding joint biography written many years ago by Lord Bullock on Hitler and Stalin.
In this book,two themes run concurrently:the British Empire's fin-de-siecle and the rise of India as an independent nation.Although of different backgrounds,both political giants-Churchill and Ghandi- seem to have been much alike.On the one hand, this book gives plenty of evidence about Churchill's effort to keep the Jewel of the British Empire no matter what the cost, while on the other hand, Ghandi- as shown here-has done almost anything to undermine Churchill's aspirations.In a very long but fascinating book, Arthur Herman has depicted the two rivals by showing their strong and weak points.Many other personalities make their appearance on this political stage,such as:General Kitchener,Rabindranath Tagore,Franklin Roosevelt,Jawarhalal Nehru,Clement Attlee and others.As Mr. Herman points out, both men enjoyed moments of glory but were also flawed.He tells a wonderful tale about one of the most fascinating yet violent periods of contemporary history.This book shows that there were many dark sides in the course of the British history and the Amritsar act of butchering helpless Indians is just one example.The final result of this showdown between Churchill and Ghandi was the rise of India and the demise of the British Empire with grave consequences for both sides.While at some point Churchill was out of touch with the historical reality ,Ghandi has not hesitated to sacrifice millions of his fellowmen in pursuit of his dream and in some ways he was extremely naive when interpreting some political events.
This books has been carefully researched and documented, the language is simple yet extremely rich, and the reader-I am confident- will enjoy one of the best-ever written history books that has come along in recent years.Arthur Herman is a master storyteller-a characteristic that many professional historians lack.The result: a very interesting ,quick-moving,rich and stimulating narrative.
A magisterial tour of demythologizing, especially of Gandhi May 29, 2008
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
It has been said of French president Clemenceau that he had one illusion, France, and one disillusion, mankind, including Frenchmen.
Arthur Herman, in his magisterial new dual biography, shows how the same could be said of his twin protagonists over India and Indians.
Churchill's illusion was that Britain could continue to hold on to the old British Raj, even after World War II and a bankrupt British treasury. His disillusion was rather a cynicism about Indian capacity for self-government, lumping Gandhi in with millions of other religious fakirs.
Gandhi's illusion was multiple, but basically of two parts. The second was that a medieval-age India, with 300 million people all picking up Gandhi's spinning wheel, was possible, was the best way for India to go, and was desired by most Indians. His second, more tragic illusion was that India without Muslim-Hindu partition was the only way to go, and that it could only be done on his terms.
Herman documents how Gandhi, not Churchill, not Viceroy Archibald Wavell, not Muhammad Ali Jinnah or anybody else, wrecked the last reasonable shot at an unpartioned India because it wasn't done his way.
Gandhi's illusion? That Indians wanted to follow his way of satyagraha, or "soul force," in its nonviolence, as well as to become peasant-based, rather than Nehru's vision of technology-driven socialism. Herman shows that British actions in Gandhi's years of the Raj were NOT driven by nonviolence but rather, the fear of violence that accompanied most of Gandhi's arrests, fasts from prison, etc.
In short, Gandhi comes off badly in this book, and deservedly so.
The mythical Gandhi of Ben Kingsley's acting and of previous bios of the Mahatma is just that -- a myth. Herman rightfully shows that Gandhi impeded India's independence (at the times he wasn't irrelevant).
Churchill, meanwhile, was Gandhi's tar baby. His 1930s "years in the wilderness" were all due to India, ultimately. His irrationality on the subject had some influence on some of his wilder military tactics proposals during World War II, as well.
But Herman doesn't stop there. He gets deeper into the personages of both, what drove them, and how neither could understand the other's drives. Churchill, who was a secularist his adult life, could never understand, let alone accept, Gandhi's religious revitalization. Gandhi, meanwhile, could understand Churchill more but would never lower himself from his hyper-idealist pinnacle enough to translate that into action.
If not for these two, India would have been independent earlier, and likely would have remained in the British Commonwealth.
An excellent book. And one of which this long review only scratches the surface.
And Herman, who helped his dad with galley proofs of a new translation of the Bhagavad-Gita when he was a child, has the academic and personal background to make this book excellent.
Gandhi & Churchill: Strong-Willed Visionaries May 27, 2008
5 out of 9 found this review helpful
Arthur Herman sets a new standard in comparative biographies. Herman goes beyond public myths and cliches in leveraging his strong story-telling and analytical skills to deliver a compelling portrait of two complex men: Mohandas Gandhi and Winston Churchill. Herman starts his narrative with the Great Mutiny of 1857 - 58 C.E. that shook the British Empire in India to its core for the first time since the British conquest of India in the previous two centuries. Herman ends his story respectively with the assassination of Gandhi in 1948 C.E. at the hands of fanatical Hindus in the aftermath of Indian independence and the death of Churchill from natural causes in 1965 C.E.
Churchill and Gandhi met only one time in their lifetime (pp. 83, 149). However, both men often were aware of each other's whereabouts (pp. 396-402, 424, 509-11, 588). None of them got what they really wanted from India. British India became independent in 1947 C.E., despite the determined opposition of Churchill and his partisans to keep the crown jewel of the British Empire in the fold. Churchill could not display his otherwise remarkable flexibility on India (pp. 99-100, 230, 267, 320-24, 351, 466, 499, 545). The loss of India sealed the fate of the British Empire that was dear to the heart of Churchill (pp. 92, 128, 185, 464, 488, 501, 591). British India dissolved into chaos and violence, resulting in the birth of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, despite Gandhi's strife for unity in the negotiations with the British and his calls for non-violence across religious lines, castes, or social classes (pp. 219-20, 450, 528, 544, 564, 591).
Although Churchill and Gandhi could not realize their ultimate dream, both men are rightly considered icons for their achievements not only in their country of birth, but also elsewhere in the world. Churchill set the foundations for the allied victory in WWII, for which he is best remembered (pp. 273-74, 530, 576, 603). British India was a key asset in achieving that victory, which is too often ignored (pp. 270, 483, 498, 541). Disillusioned by the British Empire, Gandhi played a pivotal role, using passive, non-violent mass resistance, to bring about the independence of his native India, for which he is celebrated (pp. 92, 153-54, 168-69, 178, 215, 228, 234, 273-74, 289, 366, 574, 606-09).
To his credit, Herman encourages his audience to go beyond that high-level portrait of these two men who had much in common, despite some significant differences between them. Herman challenges in the process some misconceptions that exist about the true, complex nature of Churchill and Gandhi.
Churchill grew up in England as hard as nails, a volatile mix of verbal aggression and repressed anger, mainly due to the distance that existed between him and his parents (p. 46). In contrast, Gandhi grew up in British India in a loving family (p. 51).
Churchill knew early on that politics, not the military, would be his ultimate playground to prove his worth to a prematurely deceased father, a "meteoric" politician, who had a low opinion of his son while alive (pp. 45-48, 100). Churchill experienced his intellectual, spiritual awakening in India while serving there in the military (pp. 92, 95, 108). Gandhi experienced his spiritual awakening in London while studying law there (pp. 79-81, 83, 173). Gandhi started practicing law in South Africa after his legal studies (pp. 83, 89). He got involved in politics due to the more blatant and intense racism against South African Indians, the campaign which made him world famous before his definitive return to India (pp. 85-86, 111, 155, 197). Contrary to popular myth, Gandhi was proud to be a racial purist, having little or no respect for South Africa's Blacks (pp. 131, 147, 219-20). Churchill was not better than Gandhi in that area (pp. 161-62, 255, 356, 394).
Noticeably, Churchill and Gandhi had uneasy relations with women. However, for both men, their wives would be the single most important persons in their lives, not excluding their children (pp. 71, 83, 91, 115-16, 137-38, 159, 221). Both marriages were deep and abiding lifelong partnerships (pp. 159-60).
Churchill and Gandhi were convinced that by willpower and example they could change the course of history (pp. 75, 93, 123, 139, 144, 186-87, 204, 208, 251, 267-68, 299-300, 313, 326, 337, 363, 380-81, 414, 468, 474-75, 488, 492-94, 552, 564-68, 587). Contrary to his saintly image, Gandhi was at times a bellicose man like Churchill by participating in war or morphing into the Raj's recruiting sergeant. Furthermore, Gandhi regularly managed to inspire violence among his followers (pp. 124-27, 194-95, 235-37, 241, 276-79, 294, 298, 339, 448, 553-56).
Temporary setbacks paradoxically fuelled Churchill's and Gandhi's drive, energy, and ambition (pp. 95, 145-46, 183, 204-05, 213-14, 226, 246-49, 284-90, 323, 344, 377, 401, 429, 455, 597). Politics was the arena where they turned their moral visions into reality and tested their personal courage (pp. 105, 112-14, 123, 182, 204, 253-58, 337, 363, 414, 458, 534). The buy-in of the masses for their dreams was essential to them (pp. 156, 167, 191-97, 229, 292, 343, 352, 390, 480, 570, 574). The elites of their respective societies looked at them with suspicion, resentment, or even scorn (pp. 89, 124, 143-44, 157, 182, 204, 231, 273-74, 286, 295, 305-06, 354, 394, 415-23, 581).
Few if any of their contemporaries were inclined to be what both Churchill and Gandhi wanted them to be. Churchill could not convince the British to be imperial overlords again after crushing the Axis powers in WWII (pp. 467, 516, 520, 531, 540-41, 574). Similarly, Gandhi could not convince Indians to capitalize on independence from the British to set aside ancient rivalries and modern national identities (pp. 133, 177, 277, 280-81, 291, 316, 363, 370-71, 384-89, 403-12, 430-31, 450-55, 537, 549-50, 554-57, 572, 582, 608-09). What probably most separates Gandhi from Churchill was that history was meaningless to Gandhi (pp. 53-54, 98, 445-48, 491, 506-07, 585).
To summarize, Herman offers his readers a great opportunity to better understand the context for the indelible mark that both men left on the world as we know it today.
|
|
|
