Any personal disagreement with the review, content, Gandhiji, et al, Please use M2M instead of clobbering up comments section.
Me: This is a great book. I am yet to read one negative comment on this book! The only negative comment on this book is a 3 star rating on Amazon – else this is highly regarded as one of most well written books ever; a topic close to me – my India and my road to freedom. I personally agree too – this is one of the most comprehensive books on India’s road to freedom
Me: Don’t get too surprised, I am one of them who did give this book 3 stars. Man, you have to take this objectively. Do you think this book was objective and honest and sincere? Do you think that everything in this book is the truth and nothing but the truth? I think it’s an overly dramatized book on India’s road to freedom.
Me: To an extent yes – it is pretty dramatized you can say. But isn’t that what makes the book more readable. Think if this book was yet another bland documentary on the same – would u read it? Dramatization was necessary for this kind of book to make a mark. I think the book was objective and honest for most parts of the book. It was also nice to read about Mountbatten doing so much for our country. Even in the retreat was the grace of imperial Europe. I agree I cannot guarantee the complete authenticity of the book, but 3 years of research shows on each page of the book.
Me: It does. That’s more the reason it may not be that sincere. For example, have you noticed British are almost god like in this book? Every British officer is shown to be a morally responsible person towards India. In fact, I almost felt that asking freedom was a mistake – British Raj is depicted as if it were a boon rather than a curse. 300 years of exploitation and the authors choose to depict them as morality police of India? Do you think Mountbatten was God? He is almost the superman!
Me: You do have a point there! But then what makes you think Mountbatten wouldn’t have done that much for India. I cannot be sure of those other ones in the book, but surely Mountbatten must have been responsible. I loved the way author lays upon us the road to freedom and Individual roles of Gandhi, Patel, Nehru, Jinnah and Mountbatten. All the historical perspectives of each chapter made for a good read on the history of India. Every character’s history was something good to read.
Me: Really? How much of insides of Nehru did you realize in this book? Or Sardar Patel? Did you know Nehru was a flamboyant man – clearly authors avoid it. Indian history did you say – how can Indian independence history be incomplete without a single reference to Lokmanya Tilak or Bhagat Singh. Their contribution to independence was insignificant, but they were important to be noted don’t you feel. I know what you will say that this book was set in year 1947 beginning the process to freedom. However if you include the historical perspective, don’t you think the authors should have mentioned them too at least?
Me: You don’t quite realize it. It is a book based on the principal characters and their contribution to the independence struggle. I think that’s the reason why the authors don’t mention about them. I think the book does concentrate more on the events of the last year leading to the partition of India.
Me: I am not convinced though. Though I must say that the authors do convey the horrors of partition brilliantly. I used to think that Tamas or Train to Pakistan described partition to its gory details, but the two chapters on partition had me crying. I must say that the authors leave no stone turned in describing the graphic details of the partition riots and the suffering it caused. You know it amuses me that in the time of dire consequences, it was not Nehru or Patel who saved India, but a foreigner?
Me: Exactly – but that is where I think Mountbatten must be commended right? And did u notice how the authors in the same context describe the effect of Gandhiji’s presence in Calcutta. Think what would have happened if Gandhiji’s presence had not saved Calcutta and its Muslims. What a amazing power the power of one has.
Me: You have touched a touchy subject dude. Gandhiji’s presence did save a lot of Muslims in Calcutta no doubt, but at what cost? Millions of Hindus getting murdered in Punjab and Pakistan? At what price – Gandhiji was the one who tied our hands by asking us to protect Muslims while they were killing Hindus all along. If Hindus were massacred so should be Muslims.
Me: That is a convincing point, though, I must point out to you – you didn’t understand Gandhiji then. If we too had gone ahead and killed Muslims, how many more would be dead pal? Another couple of millions? By restricting us to not kill them, he saved us as well. Why don’t you see that by asking Hindus to protect Muslims, he was able to protect Hindus too?
Me: Agreed; but why just us? Why not Muslims? It is very easy to preach. Did Gandhiji ever ask Muslims to not do something? Did he ever ask Muslims in Pakistan to not kill Hindus? Why didn’t Gandhi go on a fast unto death asking Muslims to do something? The wouldn’t have cared less anyways right – he was a cunning man.
Me: You know this what exactly Godse and his bunch of loonies thought. They were not wrong entirely, but they were not justified either. The book almost describes Godse as a criminal on the loose, but a little more from Godse could have been incorporated. I don’t support Godse, but as you think, he thought too in the same lines. Ultimately what he did was stupid and he got what he deserved. Its not that you support Godse and his thinking, its just that you didn’t understand Gandhiji’s principles. To understand Gandhiji was difficult, but those did saw the reason he spoke most of his time to Hindus. He was the ‘father’ and like a dutiful father asked the bigger son to protect the smaller ones. He would have done the same in Pakistan too – so would a Muslim kill him for that?
Me: Maybe yes. But why did Gandhi always support Pakistan and their people? Why did he force Delhi to give away those 55 crores to Pakistan? He could have seen reason that Pakistan would never use it for any good? I would have loved to know what Pakistan did with that money in the book. Sadly the book ends with the Mahatma.
Me: What didn’t belong to us didn’t belong to us. That was Gandhiji’s only point. However you describe it. What if Gandhiji had asked us to give away Kashmir to Pakistan? Would he have been butchered instantly? He was a man of eccentricities, but he was a man of ideas and a great inspiration. The authors, we and everyone else can sit around and harp and give opinions – try moving a herd of 10 people to do something and you will know how he moved a country.
Me: I agree, 50 years hence the book is a good insight to the events, but yeah, 50 years hence, I think we failed him. He died with a dream of seeing a united India; its not possible now – we are beyond it. But what we can at least do is make peace and preach the value of non-violence, the biggest gift the Mahatma gave us to the rest of the world. Surely we can do that for him. Sometime.
Me v/s Me: We agree on the last point.