Scan barcode
Reviews
Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age by Arthur Herman
catrink's review
5.0
I loved this book, and I learned a lot about both men and the times in both countries (and beyond). The narrator was quite good, and this was an excellent commute listen - and also kept me company during a part of my shoulder recovery.
risagross's review
3.0
I know there's a lot of history to cover in this book, but some further editing would have been nice. I learned a lot...until I tuned out.
thehoserpolice's review
adventurous
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.75
Really enjoyed this read. Very interesting analysis of these two larger than life historical characters
gregtatum's review
3.0
It's quite interesting how different contemporary historical figures have lives that are very similar in their arcs, and provide a unique way to compare and contrast two different cultures; the way the thematic elements in their lives came together, and the way that they diverged apart. Churchill and Gandhi were very different people, and yet they were at the forefront of two nations that had a very tightly integrated and yet disparate relationship.
Arthur Herman writes a largely engaging account of their two lives. Herman doesn't descend into the hero worship that tends to surround these characters, but really dives into what makes these figure both national heroes and men with faults, vices and errors of judgment. I couldn't help going away from the novel feeling like it was more about the life of Gandhi with Churchill thrown in as the counter-argument and British perspective. This book's major theme was the way the nation of India broke apart from its colonial status with these two figures as the narrative thread. It left me with a good picture of events, but also left me craving to know more. It's hard to write a book about Churchill and not include some of his influential role in WWII, but a lot of the drama of the war didn't directly contribute to the story of India, and that part of Churchill's life was abbreviated (and rightly so.) I'm definitely going to have to pick up a good Churchill biography after this read, perhaps after a year or so when the details of this book have started to fade.
Arthur Herman writes a largely engaging account of their two lives. Herman doesn't descend into the hero worship that tends to surround these characters, but really dives into what makes these figure both national heroes and men with faults, vices and errors of judgment. I couldn't help going away from the novel feeling like it was more about the life of Gandhi with Churchill thrown in as the counter-argument and British perspective. This book's major theme was the way the nation of India broke apart from its colonial status with these two figures as the narrative thread. It left me with a good picture of events, but also left me craving to know more. It's hard to write a book about Churchill and not include some of his influential role in WWII, but a lot of the drama of the war didn't directly contribute to the story of India, and that part of Churchill's life was abbreviated (and rightly so.) I'm definitely going to have to pick up a good Churchill biography after this read, perhaps after a year or so when the details of this book have started to fade.
fictionfan's review against another edition
5.0
Cometh the hour, cometh the men...
Two of the most iconic figures of the 20th century, Gandhi and Churchill met only once, but spent much of their lives locked in a battle over the future of India, a battle that would have repercussions far beyond the borders of that nation and long after both men had quit the political stage.
The scope of this book is huge. Herman gives us parallel biographies of both men from birth to death, a full political history of India under the Raj, and a wider look at the impact the battle for control of India had on the British Empire in the East and on the course of the bloody history of Europe and, indeed, the world in the first half of the century. He handles it superbly, remaining even-handed throughout, showing both men's failures and weaknesses as well as their strengths, and how the intransigence of each grew out of their personal histories. There's no sycophancy here, but neither is there an attempt to vilify either man – Herman suggests that neither deserves the reputation for unalloyed greatness that they tend to have been given in the popular mind in their respective nations, but both worked hard all their lives to achieve what they genuinely believed was for the best, for both nations.
Born just five years apart in the middle of the 19th century, both men grew up with the Victorian attitude to Empire. Churchill's father had been Secretary of State for India and been instrumental in annexing Upper Burma, and Herman suggests that Churchill's lifelong desire to live up to the expectations of the father he lost in his youth affected Churchill's attitude to maintaining the Empire throughout his life. Gandhi, like most high-caste and educated Indians of the time, was a supporter of the Empire in his youth, and indeed for much of his political career, fighting for equality for the races within the Empire rather than independence from it, until quite a late stage in his life.
Equality for the Indian races, that is – both men were fundamentally racist, as was pretty much the norm at the time. Churchill believed in the innate superiority of the white races, happy to give self-ruling Dominion status to the white colonies populated by good Anglo-Saxon stock, but believing in a more direct form of rule of the other colonies, since he believed they were not capable of governing themselves. The British attitude was to differentiate even between those other races, in India seeing the Muslims as a fighting people who were the backbone of the Indian Army, while Hindus were seen as having weaker, less manly attributes. Gandhi believed that Indians, or rather Hindus, were spiritually superior to other races; and his racism is further shown during the period he spent in South Africa, fighting for equality of the educated Indians in the country, but appalled at being expected to use the same doors as Africans. At this time Gandhi's desire for equality didn't include the low-caste Indians in South Africa either. Herman clearly shows the parallels between the class and race attitudes of the Britons and of the Indians – the idea that the British Empire was in some way exclusively racist is shown as a too simplistic belief. Indeed, one of Churchill's motivations in denying Indian independence for so long was his somewhat prophetic belief that the withdrawal of the Raj would lead to appalling consequences for the minorities or politically weak groupings in Indian society – specifically the Muslims and the Untouchables.
Herman draws other parallels. Both men knew what it was to fail – Churchill in the disastrous Dardanelles campaign in WW1, Gandhi in his various satyagraha (non-violent resistance) campaigns which rarely achieved any real gains and frequently descended into violence and riots. Both men lost the trust of their colleagues and were politically sidelined, to be later recalled at moments of crisis. Both men knew how it felt to ask other men to give up their lives for a cause. Both men could be brutal in pursuit of their aims – Gandhi refusing to compromise on full independence, even as violence, massacres and mass movements of refugees devastated the nation; Churchill allowing vast numbers of people to starve in the famine of 1943, unwilling to divert resources from the war effort elsewhere.
And Herman concludes that, despite successes along the way, in terms of their hopes for India both men ultimately failed. The partitioned India that finally achieved independence was not the one Gandhi had dreamed of and worked for, neither politically nor spiritually. And Churchill lived long enough to see the dismantling of his beloved Empire, which he had hoped that victory in WW2 would preserve, and the diminishing of Britain as a global force. But after death, both men would become almost mythic in their native lands – Churchill as the great war leader who stood alone against the Nazi threat, and Gandhi as the great spiritual leader of his nation – two formidable forces who influenced the world, though not always perhaps in the ways they intended.
The book covers so much it's impossible to give even a real flavour of it in a review. In short, it is a stunning achievement. Herman writes brilliantly, making even the most complex subject clear. He has the gift of knowing what to put in and what to leave out, so that the reader feels fully informed without ever becoming bogged down by a lot of irrelevant details. Even on the bits of history that he mentions more or less in passing – the background to the Suez crisis, for example, or Kashmir – his short explanations give a clarity often missed in more detailed accounts. And his writing flows – the book is as readable as a fine literary novel, a great, sweeping saga covering a hundred years or more of history, populated by characters we come to know and understand. Quite possibly the best biographical history I have ever read, and one that gets my highest recommendation.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
Two of the most iconic figures of the 20th century, Gandhi and Churchill met only once, but spent much of their lives locked in a battle over the future of India, a battle that would have repercussions far beyond the borders of that nation and long after both men had quit the political stage.
The scope of this book is huge. Herman gives us parallel biographies of both men from birth to death, a full political history of India under the Raj, and a wider look at the impact the battle for control of India had on the British Empire in the East and on the course of the bloody history of Europe and, indeed, the world in the first half of the century. He handles it superbly, remaining even-handed throughout, showing both men's failures and weaknesses as well as their strengths, and how the intransigence of each grew out of their personal histories. There's no sycophancy here, but neither is there an attempt to vilify either man – Herman suggests that neither deserves the reputation for unalloyed greatness that they tend to have been given in the popular mind in their respective nations, but both worked hard all their lives to achieve what they genuinely believed was for the best, for both nations.
Born just five years apart in the middle of the 19th century, both men grew up with the Victorian attitude to Empire. Churchill's father had been Secretary of State for India and been instrumental in annexing Upper Burma, and Herman suggests that Churchill's lifelong desire to live up to the expectations of the father he lost in his youth affected Churchill's attitude to maintaining the Empire throughout his life. Gandhi, like most high-caste and educated Indians of the time, was a supporter of the Empire in his youth, and indeed for much of his political career, fighting for equality for the races within the Empire rather than independence from it, until quite a late stage in his life.
Equality for the Indian races, that is – both men were fundamentally racist, as was pretty much the norm at the time. Churchill believed in the innate superiority of the white races, happy to give self-ruling Dominion status to the white colonies populated by good Anglo-Saxon stock, but believing in a more direct form of rule of the other colonies, since he believed they were not capable of governing themselves. The British attitude was to differentiate even between those other races, in India seeing the Muslims as a fighting people who were the backbone of the Indian Army, while Hindus were seen as having weaker, less manly attributes. Gandhi believed that Indians, or rather Hindus, were spiritually superior to other races; and his racism is further shown during the period he spent in South Africa, fighting for equality of the educated Indians in the country, but appalled at being expected to use the same doors as Africans. At this time Gandhi's desire for equality didn't include the low-caste Indians in South Africa either. Herman clearly shows the parallels between the class and race attitudes of the Britons and of the Indians – the idea that the British Empire was in some way exclusively racist is shown as a too simplistic belief. Indeed, one of Churchill's motivations in denying Indian independence for so long was his somewhat prophetic belief that the withdrawal of the Raj would lead to appalling consequences for the minorities or politically weak groupings in Indian society – specifically the Muslims and the Untouchables.
Herman draws other parallels. Both men knew what it was to fail – Churchill in the disastrous Dardanelles campaign in WW1, Gandhi in his various satyagraha (non-violent resistance) campaigns which rarely achieved any real gains and frequently descended into violence and riots. Both men lost the trust of their colleagues and were politically sidelined, to be later recalled at moments of crisis. Both men knew how it felt to ask other men to give up their lives for a cause. Both men could be brutal in pursuit of their aims – Gandhi refusing to compromise on full independence, even as violence, massacres and mass movements of refugees devastated the nation; Churchill allowing vast numbers of people to starve in the famine of 1943, unwilling to divert resources from the war effort elsewhere.
And Herman concludes that, despite successes along the way, in terms of their hopes for India both men ultimately failed. The partitioned India that finally achieved independence was not the one Gandhi had dreamed of and worked for, neither politically nor spiritually. And Churchill lived long enough to see the dismantling of his beloved Empire, which he had hoped that victory in WW2 would preserve, and the diminishing of Britain as a global force. But after death, both men would become almost mythic in their native lands – Churchill as the great war leader who stood alone against the Nazi threat, and Gandhi as the great spiritual leader of his nation – two formidable forces who influenced the world, though not always perhaps in the ways they intended.
The book covers so much it's impossible to give even a real flavour of it in a review. In short, it is a stunning achievement. Herman writes brilliantly, making even the most complex subject clear. He has the gift of knowing what to put in and what to leave out, so that the reader feels fully informed without ever becoming bogged down by a lot of irrelevant details. Even on the bits of history that he mentions more or less in passing – the background to the Suez crisis, for example, or Kashmir – his short explanations give a clarity often missed in more detailed accounts. And his writing flows – the book is as readable as a fine literary novel, a great, sweeping saga covering a hundred years or more of history, populated by characters we come to know and understand. Quite possibly the best biographical history I have ever read, and one that gets my highest recommendation.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
socraticgadfly's review
5.0
Great exercise in demythologizing, especially of Gandhi
It has been said of French president Clemenceau that he had one illusion, France, and one disillusion, mankind, including Frenchmen.
Arthur Herman, in his magisterial new dual biography, shows how the same could be said of his twin protagonists over India and Indians.
Churchill's illusion was that Britain could continue to hold on to the old British Raj, even after World War II and a bankrupt British treasury. His disillusion was rather a cynicism about Indian capacity for self-government, lumping Gandhi in with millions of other religious fakirs.
Gandhi's illusion was multiple, but basically of two parts. The second was that a medieval-age India, with 300 million people all picking up Gandhi's spinning wheel, was possible, was the best way for India to go, and was desired by most Indians. His second, more tragic illusion was that India without Muslim-Hindu partition was the only way to go, and that it could only be done on his terms.
Herman documents how Gandhi, not Churchill, not Viceroy Archibald Wavell, not Muhammad Ali Jinnah or anybody else, wrecked the last reasonable shot at an unpartioned India because it wasn't done his way.
Gandhi's illusion? That Indians wanted to follow his way of satyagraha, or "soul force," in its nonviolence, as well as to become peasant-based, rather than Nehru's vision of technology-driven socialism. Herman shows that British actions in Gandhi's years of the Raj were NOT driven by nonviolence but rather, the fear of violence that accompanied most of Gandhi's arrests, fasts from prison, etc.
In short, Gandhi comes off badly in this book, and deservedly so.
The mythical Gandhi of Ben Kingsley's acting and of previous bios of the Mahatma is just that -- a myth. Herman rightfully shows that Gandhi impeded India's independence (at the times he wasn't irrelevant).
Churchill, meanwhile, was Gandhi's tar baby. His 1930s "years in the wilderness" were all due to India, ultimately. His irrationality on the subject had some influence on some of his wilder military tactics proposals during World War II, as well.
But Herman doesn't stop there. He gets deeper into the personages of both, what drove them, and how neither could understand the other's drives. Churchill, who was a secularist his adult life, could never understand, let alone accept, Gandhi's religious revitalization. Gandhi, meanwhile, could understand Churchill more but would never lower himself from his hyper-idealist pinnacle enough to translate that into action.
If not for these two, India would have been independent earlier, and likely would have remained in the British Commonwealth.
An excellent book. And one of which this long review only scratches the surface.
And Herman, who helped his dad with galley proofs of a new translation of the Bhagavad-Gita when he was a child, has the academic and personal background to make this book excellent.
It has been said of French president Clemenceau that he had one illusion, France, and one disillusion, mankind, including Frenchmen.
Arthur Herman, in his magisterial new dual biography, shows how the same could be said of his twin protagonists over India and Indians.
Churchill's illusion was that Britain could continue to hold on to the old British Raj, even after World War II and a bankrupt British treasury. His disillusion was rather a cynicism about Indian capacity for self-government, lumping Gandhi in with millions of other religious fakirs.
Gandhi's illusion was multiple, but basically of two parts. The second was that a medieval-age India, with 300 million people all picking up Gandhi's spinning wheel, was possible, was the best way for India to go, and was desired by most Indians. His second, more tragic illusion was that India without Muslim-Hindu partition was the only way to go, and that it could only be done on his terms.
Herman documents how Gandhi, not Churchill, not Viceroy Archibald Wavell, not Muhammad Ali Jinnah or anybody else, wrecked the last reasonable shot at an unpartioned India because it wasn't done his way.
Gandhi's illusion? That Indians wanted to follow his way of satyagraha, or "soul force," in its nonviolence, as well as to become peasant-based, rather than Nehru's vision of technology-driven socialism. Herman shows that British actions in Gandhi's years of the Raj were NOT driven by nonviolence but rather, the fear of violence that accompanied most of Gandhi's arrests, fasts from prison, etc.
In short, Gandhi comes off badly in this book, and deservedly so.
The mythical Gandhi of Ben Kingsley's acting and of previous bios of the Mahatma is just that -- a myth. Herman rightfully shows that Gandhi impeded India's independence (at the times he wasn't irrelevant).
Churchill, meanwhile, was Gandhi's tar baby. His 1930s "years in the wilderness" were all due to India, ultimately. His irrationality on the subject had some influence on some of his wilder military tactics proposals during World War II, as well.
But Herman doesn't stop there. He gets deeper into the personages of both, what drove them, and how neither could understand the other's drives. Churchill, who was a secularist his adult life, could never understand, let alone accept, Gandhi's religious revitalization. Gandhi, meanwhile, could understand Churchill more but would never lower himself from his hyper-idealist pinnacle enough to translate that into action.
If not for these two, India would have been independent earlier, and likely would have remained in the British Commonwealth.
An excellent book. And one of which this long review only scratches the surface.
And Herman, who helped his dad with galley proofs of a new translation of the Bhagavad-Gita when he was a child, has the academic and personal background to make this book excellent.
lauren_endnotes's review
4.0
Unfortunately, I didn't finish the book - but that is not because I didn't enjoy it or learn from it. I got through two-thirds of the book and it was recalled to the library. I may pick it up again after it makes its rounds. Fascinating lives and an interesting way to frame the dual biographies.
More...