|
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 New: $17.00
You Save: $13.00 (43%)
New (41) Used (9) Collectible (1) from $17.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  11 reviews
Sales Rank: 6077
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
Condition: New, hardcover, perfect condition
|
| 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 6 more reviews...
 Too little on So Much July 24, 2008
This book is a mediocrity at best. An interesting idea that never comes to fruition. The author's understanding of Gandhi is embarrassingly limited. Although, those interested in either men will find stories perhaps untold in existing history books or biographies. There is the seed of a great idea here but would require at least two volumes to get it adequately. Author seems to be fighting imaginary war with "those" biographers of Gandhi who shamelessly idealize the Mahatma. Judith Brown's ghastly and unreadable account seems to be given a pass here as the author mentions her name ad nauseam. Evidently this new version by Herman is the correct one. It is inevitable that some idealization of Gandhi's character will have occurred over the last sixty some odd years. Even Churchill's character has become idealized. I do not see how depicting a "warts and all" picture of Gandhi helps anyone. And besides, there is something immodest and unsightly about stripping the clothes off the dead, especially when it comes to Gandhi, who wore so few. An above average study of Gandhi will reveal a man who never hid his faults anyway. The idea of writing a "parallel lives" of brandy-sniffing Churchill and wheel-spinning Gandhi, while being pleasant if not downright cute, is somehow parochial. But what the hell, it's a great marketing pitch.A really thorough history of the British Empire in those years with particular emphasis on India (or vice versa) would be more interesting.
 A Study in Intransigence July 15, 2008
Actually we have heard it all before how a brilliant and successful Indian lawyer who practiced as a barrister in London's Inns of Court, and in South Africa took on the British establishment in India, and how a scion of an aristocratic family both in and out of office opposed any logical attempt, or even discussion, of disestablishment.
Author, Arthur Herman, in his recently published GANDHI AND CHURCHILL brilliantly portrays the parallel lives (Gandhi was 5 years older then Churchill) and points up that they were more alike than different. They both served with distinction in the Boer War one as a journalist and one as an non-combatant and both were proud to be members of the British Imperial family. Gandhi believed that Britain's mission was to eventually grant independence to his home land, as a dominion or something similar. Churchill believed that something could be worked out but not in his life time. All this changed as a result of the massacre at Amritsar in 1919 where the occupying power overreached itself and turned Gandhi into a dedicated separatist. From 1920 onwards under the auspices of benign and often well meaning viceroys and promptings from London opportunities for a reasoned long term planning were lost because of the stubborness and intransigence of both men. Then add to the mix Nehru, father and son and the austere Moslem, Jinnah. Gandhi and Churchill met only once and exchanged correspondence once. The sub-continent of India could have remained one country if a plan had been followed but world events had taken precedence and the final transfer of power was made with precipitous haste.
We recommend this well-researched joint biography of an imperialist and war leader, and the martyred nationalist who created the new political movement of civil disobedience
Lack of Understanding of Gandhi July 1, 2008
11 out of 13 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.
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 the driving forces behind the events since the writers have not opened their eyes or intellect to recognize India's soul. The author is no different. He shows his 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 his spiritual journey during this 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 from British connection began upon his arrival in India in 1915, 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 and slanderous write up on Indian people, written under contract with East India Company long ago. It is a book that 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
3 out of 4 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
10 out of 10 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.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
