Customer Reviews

Liberty or Death: India's Journey to Independence and Division

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

It is often difficult to find a balanced, informative, and fun-to-read history book, but French has hit the target with Liberty or Death. This book is well-researched and very fun to read, but I don't recommend this for leisurely reading. It is at times a little dense, but once sorted out, the information becomes very clear.

Now, I originally chose this book for an introduction to my school Research Paper topic, which quite clearly, was the road to India's independence and division. Ultimately, I actually used several of French's arguments to support my theses. French is often very perceptive and critical of many pivotal events in India during the early twentieth century. In fact, he does a very good job weaving through many events (including the Amritsar Massacre, Satyagraha, Cripps Mission, Wavell, Churchill's attitude towards India, British Intelligence, Cabinet Delegation, Post-independence effects, etc.) without making it exceedingly boring or very superficial. He has also complied some very useful quotes that he uses throughout the book.

I'll admit - it was a little scary to pick up a 300+ page book about a topic I could read about from Encarta, but it was sure worth it. French has not only educated me, but he has actually made me think and reflect on some of the most critical decisions in Indian history.

I had mostly read history of partition of India taught in school in Pakistan which was really a one sided version all along. By accessing some newly declassified archives and throughly researshing his main charracters and events Mr. French has written a very readable account of Indian partition. I get the feeling he is neutral. Admirers of Ghandi, Jinnah, Patel and Azad may not like what they read. Nehru, Liaqat Ali Khan and Bose fare better. Mountbatten was biased towards Congress and Nehru, he should have been neutral. Chruchill was almost a villan and hated Indian leaders. Most of the English masters made bad decisions which has hurt both the countries in the long run. This book however tells us that leaders from both Congress and Muslim League were party to all the controversial decisions that were made that lead to the partition and to a very bloody aftermath in which nearly a million people died.
I agree with another reviewer that the author should have written in the end about the feelings and condition of millions of Indian Muslims who chose not to migrate to Pakistan.

This book by UK politician Patrick French is junk.

Two examples:

One, the author says India's independence movement would not have worked under Stalin's Russia since Gandhi/Nehru would have been summarily executed. By this logic, Britain would not have had magna carta if Attila the Hun was its King at Runnymede!

Two, the author says that a few "volunteers" and not Pakistan Army invaded Kashmir in 1948. Is this still in dispute? Really? So passe.

Unfortunately I bought Patrick French's 2010 book on India last week; allegedly a history of a billion people. Now, am apprehensive. What is the focus this time? Two billion arm pits?

A very captivating read. Balanced and insightful, this book presents South Asia's independence and division in a very balanced and analytical light.

French dissects Gandhi to show his less well-known side, that he was highly responsible for isolating the Muslims of India into a corner and leaving them with little option to ask for separation. Meanwhile, Jinnah is portrayed as more fortunate than cunning.

The most interesting aspect the readers walks away with is how Pakistan, which started out as a bargaining chip, becomes a reality after a litany of misjudgments, brinkmanship and mutual fears.

French demonstrates that Gandhi could have prevented Pakistan's birth if he had shown, or possessed, a grain of pragmatism and inclusiveness. Unfortunately, his obsession with Hindu spritualism bordering at madness (with his constant talks on petty issues such as beef, santitation and diets) and the resultant Hindu orientation that Congress exhibited scared the Muslims into a division of India that led to so much bloodshed and acrimony that lasts to this day.

I've read both this book and the more popular "Freedom at Midnight." I have to compare the two since they both cover the same subject. They both are very good.

Interestingly, I've had both Indian and Pakistani friends recommend "Liberty or Death" which surely is a testimony to its balance.

In contrast, neither my Indian or Pakistan friends have much good to say about "Freedom at Midnight" which, I suppose, is another kind of testimony to balance.

The main difference is that "Liberty or Death" reads like real history when "Freedom at Midnight" reads more like a novel. If you like your history written like history, "Liberty or Death" is the better book.

Don't get me wrong... "Liberty or Death" is well written and not difficult but he hasn't gone for the "history that reads like a novel" approach.

I also seems clear that Patrick French drew from quite a few more sources than did Lapierre and Collins who seem to have drawn very heavily from one soruce -- Lord Mountbatten. Mountbatten is a very good source! But he wouldn't have been very balanced.

Definitely not a travelling book but a scholarly book looking in-depth into the independence of India & its divisions into India proper & Pakistan, & subsequent split of West Pakistan & East Pakistan into present day Pakistan & Bangladesh. As William Darymple wrote his books via his encounter with common people, Patrick French tended to concentrate more of his effort in researching the archives. For me, it required more effort to absorb this book than Darymple's, which were always entertaining. But it doesn't detract from the fact that Patrick is a resourceful author & he successfully investigated few characters that played pivotal roles in the independence of India, both English & Indians included. The myth about Ghandi was brought down to earth, Bose was hailed as a hero despite his involvement with the Axis power for his nationalist attitude, Nehru as a moderate politician in contrast with Patel who had tremendous hatred for the Muslims, Jinna for his involvement with the Muslim League & his deep distrust of the Congress, Wavell for being an unsung hero who had contributed much to India's independence, Radcliffe for partitioning India accordingly with Wavell's initial plan down to the letter, Mountbatten's role for keeping the peace in India during those turbulent time after the independence. There were also discussions about the Calcutta Massacre, The Partition, the absorption of other kingdoms into India (some of them by force) & the unresolved issued about Kashmir, etc. To summarise succinctly, what Indians got in the end wasn't Liberty OR Death, but Both of them. The country is still divided by race & religion after all these years. This book is a reminder of how lucky we all are for living in the environment, which we are not judged by the colour of our skin, the race that we belong to, but the content of our characters. Only then, there's this slightest chance the world would become boundaryless and all of us would live in peace and harmony.

This is an excellent history written by a person who has a sure grasp of the vast facts and numerous personalities involved in India's fight with the British for independence. You will find wonderful anecdotes on Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, Mountbatten, Edwina, Churchill, Wavell and Patel. French's analysis is nuanced and balanced. He is not afraid to make judgments on the facts available. French also had access to 92 boxes of newly declassified intelligence documents when doing his research for this book. I would highly recommend this book.

Countless books have been written on the partition of India and Pakistan which makes the task harder of coming up with a new narrative that should develop an interest among the readers.

Patrick French has written a brilliant, first class narrative on this difficult topic by synthesizing information from various sources to form a riveting account.

Undoubtably the best account of the last years of British India.

French carries no historical baggage - he was born in 1966 and has proved his credentials with an excellent biography of Younghusband. This book is an affectionate portrait of the story of India's struggle for independence. French departs from conventional methods by trying to look at Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru and Patel as human beings and politicians. To me - educated in India - this is refreshing, because in the subcontinent, no one is objective about the four and their influence. Using access to archival material declassified recently, he shows the increasing weariness of Britain to govern her reluctant crown in the jewel. He implies that the father-son relationship between Nehru and Gandhi lead to exasperation on Nehru's part - Gandhi's saintly nature sometimes being out of step with Nehru's urbane instincts.

It has been extremely difficult to find an unbiased book written on the history of independence of the sub-continent. Primarily based on the British intelligence reports (declassified in the mid 1990s), French meets this gap. He depicts well historical Gandhi, Patel, Jinnah, Bose and Nehru. He also depicts well the then British leaders.

According to a 1945 map (included in the book), princely states constituted close to half of India while British India was the remaining half. When the leaders were busy in liberating British India, it was only Patel who was planning for the fate of the princely states.

While Gandhi was more of an anti-modernization Hindu saint, Jinnah and Nehru were modern and secular. Another secular leader Bose was the only one who understood the possibility of removing the British rule by force as the British constituted significantly less than one percent of the Indian military. The British leaders also understood this and they agreed for Indian independence when Bose already began to attract many native military to revolt. The role of Gandhi's non-violence movement seems to have impacted very little.

Jinnah is depicted as the most intellectual type leader of his time. After failing to convince his Congress colleagues for the protection of minority interests including interests of Muslims, Sikhs and low-caste Hindus, he was pushed to join the Muslim League movement for Pakistan. The League was created in Dacca and the Pakistan proposal was formally presented by Fazlul Haque (a Bengali leader) at a Lahore meeting. Pakistan movement was primarily carried out by Muslim leaders of North India and Bengal while leaders (like Sikender H. Khan of Punjab, Abdul Gaffur Khan of NWFP, the leader of Sind, and others) of what is Pakistan today actually opposed the idea of Pakistan. When the British accepted the idea of Pakistan in Muslim majority states of British India, it was Patel and his close associate Menon who were primarily responsible for the partition of Bengal and Punjab. Jinnah, the supreme Muslim League leader at that time) was given the choice of taking or loosing a truncated Pakistan. Nehru's personal relationship with the family of Mountbatten also contributed to the decision. As part of the deal Mountbatten became the first governor general of independent India! Shortly after independence, Mountbatten helped Patel to take over one after another the majority of the princely states. Unlike Nehru and his descendants, Patel never cared for higher position. He worked behind the scene for greater interest of independent India and he is the real father of the nation.

To be consistent, French's interviews with people from all the three countries should have resulted in some remarks on the later generation of leaders including Indira Gandhi, Bhutto, and Mujib. He tactfully remained away from making any prediction over the future of the sub-continent.

Although the subcontinent is similar to Europe in having many languages and ethnic groups, unlike Europe, India was more or less one country for most of its history including the Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim periods. The creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh did not make their people better of than the people of India. Certainly, the minority elites are better off. But the vast majority of the people are worse off. It is high time to think about a united India with full state/provincial autonomy. History needs to repeat soon. This way the problems of military conflicts, management of major watershed of the Himalayas including Farakka, and high overhead costs of central governance can be minimized.