by: Patrick French Publisher: Harper Collins , Price: Rs.666 Reviewed by: Natarajan Vijayasankaran - (nattu@mailexcite.com) There are innumerable books on the subject of Indian Independence, a number of biographies and auto biographies of the leading players of the time and why would you want to read a book on the same subject? You would if the author promised that he was offering a ‘radical reinterpretation of the events surrounding India’s Independence and Partition’ and Gandhi’s persona. In his attempt to sound different , the author Patrick French throws up a bundle of contradictions on the subject of Gandhi and his role in the struggle for freedom and bravo!!!...you have a book that is controversial... The problem with French is that he starts by assuming that Gandhi is actually a Mahatma and then finds to his shock that he was actually a human being with a lot of frailties. His major grievances against Gandhi are as follows :
When questioned about his inconsistent and contradicting statements Gandhi said, ‘ I never try to be consistent with my previous statements ... I only try to be consistent with the Truth as it presents itself to me at that moment’ i.e.he meant that he always spelt what he honestly felt at that moment rather than equivocating in order to justify what he had said earlier. It is precisely for this sincerity and apparent lack of deceit that he is revered so much today. Another reason for Gandhi’s stature and success was that he was not only a theorist but also a practical genius... a man possessed with the courage and confidence to put his theories into practice. We have all heard so much about non-violent forms of protests, Dandi march, civil disobedience etc. right from our childhood that we don’t understand the ingenuity and uniqueness of these ideas. They obviously products of a sharp mind but French chooses to label these qualities in him with various derogatory terms such as ‘bania’, ‘ Gujarati mentality’ etc. and tries to implicate him for not reaching a final settlement with Jinnah. This ironical because French himself points out that Gandhi had limited influence during the months preceding partition. Gandhi himself has repeatedly pointed out that he was not for mere political independence but also for social regeneration. He was working in a country of a haughty upper class and depressed lower classes who had lapsed into a state that they had paid little attention event to personal hygiene. Thus it was imperative that he touch upon various other subject such as diet and personal hygiene that affected the people directly. It would be infinitely more sensible to talk to an untouchable of that time about his bowel movements rather than about ‘Dominion status’. It is true that Gandhi was definitely a quirky man and some of his ideas were untenable. But one needs to consider the various influences under which Gandhi operated rather than concluding than comparing him with western stereotypes and concluding that he was faddist. Gandhi is revered because he asked the right question not because he found the right answers. French is not the first person to document Gandhi’s failing and eccentricities. Many of his biographers have done that, last of whom is not Nehru who in his Autobiography vividly describes his disappointment with Gandhi. The difference is that French chooses to identify Gandhi wholly with his frailties. In trying to sound different French comes up a bunch of contradicting statements... Take a look at these... " ...Nor was it ( Independence ) the inevitable consequence of the unquenchable socio-political forces, with the people of India rising up as one to drive the invaders into the sea...the British left India because they lost control our crucial areas of administration and lacked the will and the military ability to recover that control..." (Page xx) "Without his (Gandhi’s) success in turning Congress into a mass movement in the 1920s, it is unlikely that the British would have been dislodged by 1947" (page362). Take a look at these two... "The leading Indian Politicians of the 1940s knew exactly what they were doing, and in general showed far greater competence than their opponents in London." (Page xxii.) "In 1946, Nehru had naively told a journalist: ‘when the British go, there will be no more communal trouble in India’... there was a stunning incapacity among politicians of all kinds to realize what was likely to occur." It is baffling that French chooses to highlight Gandhi’s allegiance to Hindu Dharma and Jinnah’s ‘secularism’.( "... the founder of the homeland for muslims remained a secularist of sorts to the end" page 27). French tries to paint the picture of Indian (Republic of India) Muslims being highly distrustful of Gandhi , the credibility of which is highly questionable. Gandhi’s fasts to end the Calcutta riots and to pay the 55 crore due to Pakistan receive a passing mention. That the Indian Muslims were staunch supporters of the Congress right until the Bombay riots is not even mentioned. While French chooses to call Gandhi a ‘bania’ , ‘ Gujarati Mentality’ etc. with people ranging from Bal Thackeray to Ashok Row Kave( a homosexual activist ) are quoted to make his point, Jinnah is made out to be a man with a ‘sharp mind’ whose achievements were ‘phenomenal’. While Attenborough’s Gandhi definitely fails to portray Gandhi in all his facets, it is definitely not ‘grossly inaccurate’. French claims that Jinnah is portrayed in the film as ‘demented trickster’. Is he?.... " Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi has Jinnah as a demented trickster, blundering about and muttering unsourced lines such as, ‘I will have India divided or India destroyed’ ".... now...now... where in the film does Jinnah say all this? The whole thing is ironic because Death or Liberty is such a readable book that it would have been a bestseller even without all this circus. |