Gandhi and Churchill : the epic rivalry that destroyed an empire and forged our age
(Book)

Popular historian Herman (How the Scots Invented the World, 2001) dramatizes the end of Britain's rule of India through the lives of Mohandas Gandhi and Winston Churchill. The barrister met the politician once, in 1906, and each man's subsequent relation to the issue of independence, up to its realization in 1947, guides Herman's narrative. The tenor of the author's presentation is that both Gandhi and Churchill's visions of India's future were illusory, and bear some blame for the convulsions of 1947 (partition, communal violence, and a Pakistani-Indian war). Rooted in his youthful experiences in India, Churchill's stout imperialism became an ever more impractical stance as Gandhi's advocacy of independence gained momentum over the decades. Descriptive about the latter's revered methods of nonviolence, Herman discerns an implied forcefulness behind them should, for example, a Gandhi fast touch off riots. If uncomplimentary toward Gandhi's political acumen, Herman presents his criticisms subtly, without impeding the brisk narrative flow. Showing history eluding Gandhi and Churchill, Herman provocatively presents their efforts to shape it.--Taylor, Gilbert Copyright 2008 Booklist

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) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

Two fiercely opposed world leaders who were still temperamentally in tune. (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Veteran historian Herman (To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World, 2004, etc.) offers an ambitious, reasoned joint biography of two great men. Each was a late-Victorian political figure who continued to lead into the mid-20th century. Each held an exemplary vision for his country that initially and spectacularly prevailed, but ultimately collided with new modern realities. Born to a well-to-do Hindu family in the western province of Gujarati, Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) was groomed in the English educational system to be a barrister and spent a formative period studying in London. His first experience of racial discrimination was in South Africa, where he worked for the enfranchisement of indentured servants. Winston Churchill (1874-1965), son of an aristocrat who was briefly secretary of state for India, inherited his father Randolph's unshakeable belief in Britain's imperial mission to the subcontinent. While both Gandhi and Churchill had absorbed the idea of empire as "a moral force, an institution of order and civilization," Gandhi's view would change drastically. He gradually repudiated Britain for its criminal subjugation and tyranny, fashioning a new spiritual creed from his deep philosophical readings, during his many jail stints, of Tolstoy, Ruskin and the Bhagavad Gita. Churchill rejected Gandhi's brand of religious "fanaticism," which he believed threatened to engulf the civilized Christian world in paganism and darkness. When Gandhi returned to India and joined national politics, he developed his belief in ahimsa (nonviolence) to embrace methods of satyagraha (passive resistance) in order to challenge the Raj's paternalistic, restrictive policies. Churchill opposed him at every step, passionately rejecting, for example, Viceroy Lord Irwin's advocacy ofdominion status for India in 1929. Herman's measured portrait of each man conveys his entire worldview, shaped by class, history and education. Each proved great and flawed in different ways. A well-wrought historical narrative that adds significantly to our understanding of both figures. Copyright ©Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

Popular historian Herman (How the Scots Invented the World, 2001) dramatizes the end of Britain's rule of India through the lives of Mohandas Gandhi and Winston Churchill. The barrister met the politician once, in 1906, and each man's subsequent relation to the issue of independence, up to its realization in 1947, guides Herman's narrative. The tenor of the author's presentation is that both Gandhi and Churchill's visions of India's future were illusory, and bear some blame for the convulsions of 1947 (partition, communal violence, and a Pakistani-Indian war). Rooted in his youthful experiences in India, Churchill's stout imperialism became an ever more impractical stance as Gandhi's advocacy of independence gained momentum over the decades. Descriptive about the latter's revered methods of nonviolence, Herman discerns an implied forcefulness behind them should, for example, a Gandhi fast touch off riots. If uncomplimentary toward Gandhi's political acumen, Herman presents his criticisms subtly, without impeding the brisk narrative flow. Showing history eluding Gandhi and Churchill, Herman provocatively presents their efforts to shape it. Copyright 2008 Booklist Reviews.

Two fiercely opposed world leaders who were still temperamentally in tune. Copyright 2008 Reed Business Information.

The complex task of drawing comparison and contrast between two of the most chronicled lives of the 20th century is easily and compellingly handled by Herman (How the Scots Invented the Modern World ). Spanning the globe and dozens of decades, Herman never sinks into the clichs of these two men's biographies but rather deconstructs some of the cherished myths surrounding them while maintaining a warm and lively tone. From India to South Africa to London, they seemed to cross paths in life yet could never reach a true understanding of each other. Churchill, the ardent defender of the British Empire, had trouble accepting modern political realities and fixated upon Gandhi as the ultimate threat to his beloved England's legacy. Gandhi, in turn, achieved global superstar status but could not unite Indian politics and eventually became a hindrance, then an irrelevance, to Indian independence. These two men may have been presented historically as enemies, or at least proxy enemies, but Herman brings out the true issues that divided them yet made them remarkably similar holdovers of the Victorian era. Highly recommended for public and academic libraries. [See Prepub Alert, LJ 1/08.]—Elizabeth Morris, Barrington Area Lib., IL

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)