Rating: 
Summary: Flawed but fascinating
Review: I thought this book was fascinating. It's somewhat biased, the writing is a bit melodramatic, and it does hold the British in perhaps undue esteem. At the same time, it also manages to present an extraordinarily complex and relevant set of events in a totally engaging way. For me, it gave necessary context to a time in history that I only knew about anecdotally. It covers Indian independence from a great number of angles, only some of which I may have otherwise encountered: British, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, prince, Untouchable, refugee, pro-Gandhi, anti-Gandhi, etc. All in all, while you have to live with a few flaws, it was an illuminating read that I would recommend without reservation. (And, the biggest bonus: I can now list out all the forms of the word "viceroy", including vicereine, viceroyalty, and viceregal.)
Rating: 
Summary: Decent Introduction to the History of the Subcontinent
Review: I would recommend this book to someone who has only a limited knowledge of the history of the British Indian Empire and the subsequent partition which created the modern nations of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The book gives an overview of the history of the British Raj and the subsequent partition but lacks balance. As other reviewers have pointed out, the book tends to idealize Gandhi (although it does point out how many of his followers ended up distancing themselves from him due to his various personal quirks and bizarre utopian economic and industrial schemes), as well as Nehru and the Congress Party and, on the other hand, demonizes Jinnah and the Muslim League. This book repeats the claim that the demand from Jinnah for partition was only a personal crusade of his and had people known he was dying of lung disease they would have waited for him to leave the scene and other, more "moderate" Muslim leaders would have stepped forward and agreed to remain in a united India. Another book I have read, "End of Empire", points out that in a conference held after the end of World War II, Jinnah agreed to accept loosely federated united Indian state but the Congress party rejected the proposal so it is incorrect to say the the "blame" for partition is solely Jinnah's. Jinnah was a totally unreligious Muslim who was an early member of the Congress party and believed in Hindu-Muslim cooperation but he opposed Gandhi's religiously-based civil disobedience campaign, fearing correctly that it would lead to violence and sectarianism. In the provinicial governments set up after the Indian elections held in 1937 the Congress party often refused to share power with Muslims in provinces where Hindus were the majority. This led Jinnah to the conclusion that Indian must be partitioned, a policy he opposed when it was first proposed in the early 1930's. In any event, the rise of Muslim conciousness around the world in the post-War era and its increasing rejection of secular politcs would have almost certainly lead to turmoil in the heavily Muslim parts of a united India as we see happening in Kashmir. Similarly, the hypocrisy of Gandhi and Nehru are glossed over in the book. Gandhi, who demanded from his people that they make sacrifices in order to push the British out of India, turns around and tells the Jews who were being murdered by the Nazis and the Ethiopians being invaded by the Italians to passively accept their fate. Gandhi had the good fortune to confront the basically civilized and democratic British but he had no antidote to genocidal Fascism. Similarly Nehru, who preached passive resistance to the British had no problem sending the Indian Army into Portuguese-controlled Goa when he saw that Gandhi's way was not working fast enough. Still, fairness requires stating that when all is said and done, when we compare modern India with the other giant nations, China and Russia, India, with all its flaws, has more or less remained a democracy and did not end up carrying out mass terror against its population as the other two did, so this speaks well for the country that Gandhi inspired and Nehru lead for so many years. This book gives the reader much of the background needed to understand this.
Rating: 
Summary: Ugh, odious book
Review: If one were to take this book at its face value then Mountbatten was the true hero of Indian independence and Muslims and Sikhs are crazy, mindless beasts who will ... pillage everything in sight. As an Indian I was insulted. As a Hindu I was apalled. The book demonizes Jinnah, makes Gandhi a ... mess and Nehru into an inept fool.
Rating: 
Summary: At the stroke of midnight ... when the world sleeps,
Review: Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre have managed to capture one of the most important years (1947) of world history in their book. Freedom at Midnight is possibly one of the most outrageously enthralling works of writing based on real events that I have ever read. This book is an account of the year 1947 in context to the freedom of India from the British Raj. It opens on New Year's Day, 1947, London and takes the reader on a journey of significant events that lead to the independence of India. On the way, the reader is introduced to many brilliant characters who shaped up the history in that part of the world and have since left their mark that is still evident. The decisions made by these people defined the future of millions of people. Freedom at Midnight is an intimate account of the reasoning of these historical figures that lead to the independence and division of India. Why did Prime Minister Clement Atlee who took office dedicated to break the Empire apart choose Louis Mountbatten, a member of the royal family to be the last viceroy of India? Why was he the man to administer India's freedom operation? This book is one of the most intimate accounts of the most venerated figures in the world's history, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi aka Mahatma Gandhi. His approach, position, attitude towards the British Raj, the Indian Congress, the political and social blueprint that he dreamed of the Independent India. And vice-versa. As the book flows like an epic, it gives detailed account of final days of Gandhi and who, why and how of the assassination of this revered leader. The reader is also introduced to Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. What happened to the Maharajas, the palaces, the tigers, the jewels and the harems? What lead to the demise of fantastic royalty in India? The authors have devoted a whole chapter to recounting the opulence enjoyed by the Maharajas and their magnificent indulgences. How was the line drawn that divided the nation? Who initiated the idea and why was the idea initiated? Collins and Lapierre show poignant picture of the greatest migration in history. The religious division left an estimated 250,000-500,000 people dead. One of the unsolved matter since than that still afflicts both nations (India and Pakistan) and have since lead to three wars, Kashmir, is devoted a whole chapter. The valley that was once described as "heaven on earth" by the last Mogul Emperor of India today is contradicting the emperor's statement in every way possible. This book discloses the history behind the conflict. One of the most appealing qualities in the writing of the authors was their effort into giving some personal accounts into the lives of the common people. I recommend this book to anyone who is a student of world history and precisely history of India. This book takes the reader through the year that lead to the birth of three nations, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating...but eulogises Mountbatten
Review: One of the best books on history I have ever read. Keeps you interested right through the end. However, the authors seemed to have praised Mountbatten beyond the limts. There are no heroes in this book apart from Mountbatten. I can live with Gandhi being partrayed as a human and not as a saint as many believe him to be, but a flawless Mountbatten is unbelievable. And in general, the British seem to have got more marks for their mishandling of the partition.
Rating:
Summary: Very well written history of the independence of India
Review: The authors begin by taking you back to the times of the Raj and princedoms. This lays the foundation for an excellent recounting of the events preceding and during the independence of India. The authors successfully convey the sense of urgency in the situation. They also give a complete and relatively unbiased view of the role of each of the main players. While it is a historical non-fiction, it reads almost like a novel. It is easy to follow, yet provides ample detail where appropriate. Highly recommended for anyone who is interested in the birth of India and Pakistan, as well as for anyone interested in the role of political and personal power, and how it can be used to shape a countries identity and future.
Rating:
Summary: biased and dramatized version of history, but well-written.
Review: The book is very nicely written as far as the presentation goes. The style is more of a piece of fiction, a story rather than a factual description of the events (which makes it easier to read). It thus falls into the pithole of being biased: as a dramatized version of history, it has a hero and a villain. The heros are Gandhi, Mountbatten and Congress and India whereas Jinnah and Pakistan are the villains. Every mention of Gandhi and Mountbatten is full of eulogy. Every mention of Jinnah is spiteful. Gandhi is the prophet. Jinnah is presented as a thorn. The author seems to have predominantly (post partition) Indian/British sources to their disposal. While the personality descriptions of Gandhi, Nehru, Mountbatten, Patel span many pages, there is a very small personality description of Jinnah, and hardly any of any of the other muslim leaders. Apparently, the authors didnt have access to (or chose not to have access to) the sources of history in Pakistan. Their description of what went on in the Jinnah camp comes from how the Nehru & Mountbatten camp perceived what was going on in the Jinnah camp. Their description of the Boundary commission's task of partitioning Punjab is very naive, as if willfully hiding out all the details. Authors have explicitly as well as implicitly branded Gandhi, Nehru Mountbatten and Patel as "goodies" and Jinnah and Pakistan as "baddies" NOT a good one for those who wish to get an unbiased view of history, especially a just description of the muslim viewpoint. I persume indians would like to read it very much!
Rating:
Summary: Very well researched but prejudiced
Review: The book starts with a very impressive history into how the British first entered India and gives some startling facts, hitherto, unknown to me about the Indian history. Besides narrating the tale of Indian freedom struggle, the book does give good and well researched details of the structure of India, the time of Maharajas, an account of her various provinces like the Punjab and Bengal, some of the mythological explanations for the beliefs of her people etc. But I must say all the good work put into the extensive research and an effort to write the book as a legendary piece of literature about India, go waste, when a knowledgeable Indian finds biased facts, an effort to glorify English by presenting only the facts which do so, an attempt to justify everything done by British by concealing the atrocities brought about by them during their so-called Raj in India and by skipping very conviniently any virtues of Indian masses despite the difficulties before them, their accomplishments and virtually anything besides the facts such as their squatting habits, religious extremisms, being ignorant, illiterate and incompetent. By the end of the book, the reader is left with a great impression of the Englishmen and especially Louise Mountbatten and an aversion towards India and Indians. Indians are, and were at the time of the freedom, much more competent, intelligent, resourceful, advanced and civilized than as depicted in the book, surely not to forget the fact that there are still many people in Indian masses who really do need more education and exposure. But it could be made a more just book by presenting both the sides, instead of just the negative one.
Rating:
Summary: Get a copy .. won't disappoint you
Review: The first time I read this book was years ago when I was in Graduate school, and since then I have taken out and read my copy frequently, at times to breeze through a chapter or a reference point, but twice to read it cover to cover all over again.
Setting out at the point when (a reluctant) Lord Mountbatten is assigned the task of dismembering the empire from its proudest colonial possession, the book proceeds to delve deep into the principal characters involved in one of the most remarkable events in human history. Through a combination of exquisite prose, meticulous research and skillful narrative, Collins and Lapierre brings to life these men and women, who with their life's work played out an irrevocable part first in the subjugation and subsequently, centuries later, to the liberation of millions in the sub-continent.
Portrayed thus in those highly textured and vivid images are the personalities of Mahatma Gandhi, breathtakingly simple in philosophy and excruciatingly complex in what he does; Jawaharlal Nehru, loyalties divided between his affection for the Mahatma and (what he considered) pragmatic solutions for India's problems; Sardar Patel, the man who many consider the "real hero"; Jinnah, unscrupulous and unflinching in his demand for Pakistan; and Mountbatten, flamboyant, savoir-faire, and as the authors would have us believe, ever empathetic towards India. (This last part being driven in at times with a bit too much fervour to the liking of many who look at it from the East's perspective). Added in good measures, in deference to the west's fascination perhaps, are revealing accounts of the Maharajas and their larger than life existences with their elephants and their harems. Significant no of pages are also devoted to the run-up to the Mahatma's assassination, and the people involved in this act.
To the authors credit, the book makes no pretences of being a historic commentary on the Indian Freedom Struggle. Those who want to formulate their ideas on the Indian freedom motion are better advised reading other available works on the subject first, and then dig into this book for an entirely new flavour of history telling, which none of the others attempts to. Given this, excessive criticism directed at "Western leanings" in the narrative seems out of context.
In conclusion, a gripping work, eminently successful in what it sets out to achieve and a highly recommended read for any interested in the travails of "a fifth of humanity"
Rating:
Summary: Paid Publicity Some Facts Some Fiction
Review: This book contains a lot of interesting details, which help to visualize what happened during the partition of India and Pakistan. However,...
When I was reading the book it did not come across as fiction, more as fact.
The book is problematic as it presents the British as an innocent bystander who just happened to rule this great land for a couple of hundred years and inadvertently draw up the partition lines which cause so many problems that could not have been foreseen.
Mount batten, and Gandhi are presented as saint-like. Indeed Gandhi had many good qualities, which are brought out. Jinnah in comparison to Nehru is presented as a hard-line, disconnected leader. On the eve of independence he is supposedly only concerned about finding his croquet set in his new mansion. The Hindu/Sikh versus Muslim violence is presented as if it were objective, yet almost without exception the image of the Muslim is a very negative one. Muslims start the antagonism and the Hindu/Sikhs respond. Women are kidnapped, but the compassionate kidnapper is the Sikh. Both sides give refugee but the Hindu is the one with higher morals.
When you mix fact and fiction together you get neither and that is why this book by itself is a poor choice to learn about the partition.
|
