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.
