Most people will read "Gandhi and Churchill" for the author's detailed study of how the two men compared and contrasted with each other. Remember the exam papers that asked you to compare and contrast two historical periods or two--whatever? Arthur Herman uses the compare and contrast framework to anchor his view that under the skin, Gandhi and Churchill were more alike than you would expect if you put the skinny, bare-chested man and his rotund, English-dressed adversary side by side. Both men were products of the Victorian Age. Both highly esteemed the "manly" virtues. Both were ruthless on occasion. And both, more often than we like to think, could be wrong, even disastrously wrong. To add to the mix, both men's lives had a series of successes and failures.

For many decades Gandhi and Churchill (but they were not the only players, as the author makes clear in great detail) struggled over what India was and what India would become. In the end, according to Herman, neither man's vision prevailed.

This is a very critical dual portrait, not easy on either man, and if both emerge, from time to time, as large sized, it is not because the author intends to spare them. On occasionI found myself wrestling with the author's judgments, not completely satisfied with the interpretations, not sure that there isn't more to be said on one side or the other. Interpretive histories can be more or less persuasive, and I found this one very useful, with lots of new information, but--well, we are allowed to reserve judgment. The author seems to suggest that each man, in his own way, scuttled the possibility of a united India containing Hindus and Moslems together, an India emerging without the birth pangs of massacre and attrocity. He almost seems to be saying that absent these men the bloodbaths would have or could have been avoided. Maybe.

However, the book is interesting for another quite unexpected reason: its portrait of what happened in and around India during the Second World War. My guess is most Americans think of WWll in terms of the blitzkreig in Europe, men and machinery trudging in the snow in endless areas of Russia, naval battles in the Pacific, with some fierce island-hopping fighting going on as you got closer to Japan. Sure there was something called "over the hump" and of course Singapore fell, and something should be said about Burma, but that part is hazy. For those not aware how deeply and intimately India and Indian soldiers were involved in the war, this book is something of a revelation. For that reason alone some readers might well want to pick up the book quite aside from the book's two-peas-in-a-pod argument.

"Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age", Arthur Herman, Bantam Books, NY 2008. ISBN 978-0-553-80463-8, HC 609/722. Notes 50 pgs., Ref., 12 pgs., Index 34 pgs., Glossary 3 pgs., Dates 3 pgs., 9 ¼" x 6 ¼". Inveiglements include 35 glossy B/W photos and 3 schema maps of Africa & India.


This detailed, lengthy chronicle, thoughtfully divided into 31 chapters, is brilliantly written in fast-moving style by best-selling author Arthur Herman. It's a narrative journal about two legendary worldly figures - Gandhi and Churchill whose lives and life forces entwined as both struggled relentlessly against one another, ...so much sound and fury wont to evoke primal screams of differing secular humanisms. We learn about their early years, of their accomplices or sidekicks, of their rise in worldly stature via victories and losses, where sophistication can be triumphed by naivety, and where melancholy necessitates time out, and about a blood-bath too frequently skipped over unequalled in history.

We generally think of fiction as attention-getting and if its really good, something hard to put down -- but this is so true of Herman's book, which is basically recent history - much of which most of us likely experienced dispassionately, unless we served overseas in military combat.

Did you ever think reading history could be exciting, that experiencing history as it is written and told is all but invariably propagandized whereby accounts by third parties sounds distantly foreign but can be verified by reliable sources? Well, "Gandhi & Churchill" is a tremendous read and you'll wonder why so much passed you by - you'll discover the personages in detail and understand better why Rommel and British Army were in Africa, of the racial-ethnic caste mix in India, of India's division into Bangledesh, Pakistan and India, locations Japanese invaded India, parental forces which drove Churchill, whether Winston truly drank whiskey in the morning, and if Gandhi enjoyed sex? and what he really died from - and so much, much more.

Author Herman could have written separate books on these two personages, but combining them was grandiose. Do not miss this book!

The information to be gleaned from this book is amazing. I've read many book on Churchill but learned a great deal more from this book.

I did not, however, like the author's writing style: Punctuation anarchy; verbose, and at times preachy. It got in the way of making this an enjoyable read.

The author needs an editor - a good one.

I would recommend the book with the above caveat.

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.

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

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 naïve 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.

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 naïve 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.

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 bureaucrats who ran India were ruthless despots by violently enforcing their will on an unwilling 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. It is understandable since the author, like many other Western scholars, looked at the Second World War as the only ongoing event at the time and all the other events were either peripheral to the war or they did not matter.

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 naïve 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 his understanding of India and Indians did not come from that book.

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 bureaucrats who ran India were ruthless despots by violently enforcing their will on an unwilling 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. It is understandable since the author, like many other Western scholars, looked at the Second World War as the only ongoing event at the time and all the other events were either peripheral to the war or they did not matter.

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 naïve 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", which no contemporary Indic scholar would use as a reference. All I can hope is that his understanding of India and Indians did not come from that book.

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.

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.

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.

Arthur Herman sets a new standard in comparative biographies. Herman goes beyond public myths and clichés 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.

A unique paring of two of the 20th century's most significant political
figures, two people whom we instantly recognize but, in truth, about whom
we know little. Arthur Herman does an excellent job of maintaining balance.
The "conclusion" is especially thought-provoking. A very interesting book for political buffs and for those interested in the history that formed the world in which we now live.

While timely, this book does not offer the reader accurate information regarding these two personalities. The Indian subcontinent's independence struggle is a complex subject, and it takes an extremely skillful, understanding author to really probe its depths. The reader should know that the partition came at a tremendous price, and it was not what Gandhi wanted; that was Jinnah's idea, one that the British planted in him because it followed their "divide and conquer" policy. The British were the ones who cut and ran without giving thought to a smooth transition that would avoid the mass violence that ensued. Gandhi did not initiate this. The reader should also know that Churchill always referred to the Indian population as "those bloody Indians"; how many know that he was an out and out racist who believed in the innate inferiority of minorities. Hardly a hero! Yes, he was against Hitler nad his threat against freedom; how hypocritical that he didn't want the same freedom for India. British rule in India shows 200 years of oppression and overt brutality. The book should have more on this often disregarded aspect of the Raj. Churchill wanted to cling to the outdated Empire to continue a systemic policy of exploitation. The book does not cover this and is therefore woefully inadequate.

A very fine dual biography. Those wishing to learn more about the founding of modern India and Pakistan and the withering away of the British Raj are encouraged to buy and read this book.

Churchill and Gandhi are giant personalities of the first half of the last century, with their political and moral acts still echoing in today's world. Dr. Herman writes with authority, balance and insight while explaining the motivations of these two inspirational leaders--both having serious flaws and blind spots--who were so at odds for several decades over the future of the British Empire and, more specifically, the fate of its subjects on the subcontinent.

This is a wonderful book, easy to read, full of fascinating insights into two of the most powerful and prominent personalities of the 20th century. Churchill was, of course, flawed but such an interesting personality that one cannot resist his pull. Gandhi, on the other hand, left a far more negative mark on history. Perhaps a saint, he never-the-less, was so single mindedly devoted to the total expulsion of British rule, that he sacrificed the lives of millions of his countrtymen by refusing solutions that could have avoided the civil strife that lead to the parition of India.

There are lessons here for us today. The British decision to exit India on a date certain, regardless of conditions on the ground, played into Gandhi's destructive power. Let's hope that there is no Gandhi in the currect Iraq equation. The entire situation in the Middle East, of course, is largely the construction of Churchill following the First World War. This book is a supurb overview of the complexity, horrors and glories of the past century, and of its most prominent players.

This is one of those books that takes two familiar lives--those of Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill--and tells them in parallel. The idea is that the two men influenced each other's goals and lives much more than has been acknowledged in the past. The two only met once: in 1906 when Churchill was Colonial Undersecretary, and Gandhi was lobbying on behalf of Indian independence. Author Herman makes this the center of the book in some ways, which is strange given that it happens very quickly in the book (on about page 130 of what's a 600-page tome) but it works, because the two men seem to have built impressions of one another resting in part on this meeting.

Herman has a number of things to say about both men. He spends about equal time with each, discussing the central issues of their lives and how the other person fit into each stage of the history of the 20th Century. For instance, when he's talking about Churchill, Herman recounts his attitude towards Indian independence and towards Gandhi personally. The book also works as a history of the latter part of the British Raj in India, from approximately the turn of the century to independence. There's a lot of interesting stuff in here, including the fact that Churchill's time "in the wilderness" during the run-up to World War II may have been due to his attitude towards India (he opposed independence resolutely) as much as his opposition to Hitler and appeasement. Gandhi comes across as a naïve idealist who thought he could create a country where everyone worked a spinning wheel and there were no factories, who made speeches that set off riots, but always seemed to think he was only encouraging non-violence.

I enjoyed this book a great deal. It's long, and there's a lot of material here, but it's very informative and has a different take on things. I would recommend it highly.