In The Name Of The Father Biblio Jul_aug 2007

~

DO.CUMENTARY

exactlv as it came into existence in 1947 -fro~ 1933 onwards. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this narrative is the distance placed between the retreating British administration and the violence of Partition. DistUrbances are mentioned before August 1947 though the account creates the strong impression in its structure and content that the violence took place only once the Indian administration was in place and Louis Mountbatten's authority had been reduced to that of Governor-General. This exculpation is, of course, deeply inaccurate though perhaps illuminates the sensibility of partitions (something of a British Imperial habit) which were consistently justified as a means of avoiding exactly the sort of brutalities which invariably followed them. Throughout, both in diary extracts and in the commentary, partition is the only solution to a long-standing problem which it Was the last Viceroy's regrettable, if inevitable, task to impose. As King George VI wrote to his cousin, Louis, two days before In4ian independence: ;' "I do want you to know & to realise how much I have admired thei/way in which you have handled the 'task of dividing the Hindus & Mu~pms into tWodifferent Dominions simply by the force of that persuasion... Please accept my thanks ~nd congratulations. ' The text makes for slightly uncomfortable though interesting reading in parts (if not for the reasons the author perhaps imagines). For example, the Mountbattell5 are persuaded to attend the wedding of the future queen Elizabeth in order "not to draw attention to the crisis" in the subcontinent, a decision which, with hindsight, hardly flatters. The warmth of the aristocratic fraternity betwFen the Mountbattens and the Indian Princes, undoubtedly genuine, seems quaint: "The wolves got to [the princes] in the end bUt he [Mountbatten] did at least secure them a few years of protection and independence." The book contains a large number of photographs although few, if any, have not been published before. There are also editorial clues that suggest that this publication, undoubtedly like many others this year, was rather rushed oUt. The 'special relationship' enjoyed by Jawaharlal Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten, seemingly the more interesting and certainly freer spouse, is broached in the Introduction and never once referred to again. The two fell in love in Malaya in 1946 and although the relationship is placed in t;le context of Edwina's "other lovers", Pamela insists that it was entirely platonic. Louis Mountbatten pragmatically accepted the intimacy and even used his wife as a bridge to Nehru on difficult political questions. A tantalising reference is made to a suitcase full of letters sent by Nehru to Edwina Mountbatten. The letters would, "start with a charming opening paragraph, very touching and personal, and...would end affectionately. But the main part of the letters was a diary of everything he [Nehru] had been doing and the people he had seen, his hopes and fears, and, towards the end of this twelve-year correspondence, his disappointments and disillusion." It is impossible not to hope that these letters will soon form the basis of quite a

different stUdy.

.

~ 0u >' a: ,... z => 0

u'" 0 0

~ 5'" s: "" A still from the film 'Gandhi,

My Father' by Feroze Khan, 2007

In the naDle of the father -eIn The Tracks of the Mahatma:

the Making of a Documentary

By A.K Chettiar (edited and introduced by A.R. Venkatachalapathy; translated from the Tamil by S. Thillainayagam) Orient Longman, Chennai, 2007, 172 pp., Rs 375 ISBN 81-250-3142-1

Harnal

Gandhi: a Life

By Chandulal Bhagubhai Dalal (edited and translated

from the Gujarati by Tridip Suhrud)

Orient Longman, C4~nnai, 2007, 324 pp., Rs 690 ISBN 978-81-250-3049-2 .

BRIAN

the Gandhian solution. The 'series inscription is to Gandhi's "unique practices" being as much part of his politics as his spiritual life, and for that reason the series holds to no particular view of Gandhi preferring instead to investigate allpossible dimensi.ons~ At first sight, these two books hav'e . little in common apart from being translated into English from their original languages but, upon reflection, they push into two quite diff~rent bUt, related aspects of the Gandhi life:.th~ public and the private. A further embeUishment there is that they by definition raise more questions about the distance between reality and symbol. A.K. Chettiar's is an extraordinary story, because for almost three years immediately prior to World War II he travelled the world with no other purpose but to purchase film footage of Gandhi in order to make a documentary. The filmmaker remains as much an enigma as his subject. Born

omewherein theearlydaysof his unfathomably popular elevation to leadership of Australia's opposition Labour Party; Kevin Rudd remarked that the best view upon. one particular' matter,. as usual, came from GandhLWhile Gandhi never really left the world's popular consciousness, he might well now be referenced as much if not more as at any point ever. There. are few conflicts that go by where a Gan,dhian solution is not posited by someone or other. That seems incongruous in a world where recusants of all hues have access to advanced levels of military hardware, but, then, that might be precisely the reason for the abiding interest in Gandhi. These two books come at the start of a series entitled Gandhi StUdies overseen by Ashis Nandy, Tridip Suhrud himself, and Thomas Weber of LaTrobe University in Australia, so underscoring the global popularity of and interest in BIBLIO

STODDART

: JULY.

AUGUST 5

2007

into the Nattukkottai Chettiyars, he was drawn to Gandhi early, became involved in pJ'blishing, but also seems to have been something of a rebel- it is thought that he married impulsively but that the marriage was never consummated, and that he severed family ties as a result. It is also clear that he was not involved in the traditional commercial activities of the caste, though it remains a matter of speculation as to how he funded his massive undertaking-did he find backers in the community because of a devotion to Gandhi? In the early 1930s he went to Rangoon and then, three years later, began formal training in photography which he undertook in Tokyo then New York. He th~n began a car,eer as a travel writer which lasted throughout his life, really. The book describes the making of the documentary, and it is understated to say the least-major figures like Romain Rolland and a host of others flit through almost unremarked. This

.,.

is one of those "networking" epics where the reader desperately wants to know "how all this came about?" Chettiar suggests that much of it stemmed from his time in New York where he studied with people like General Smuts' brother, but there is obviously something else happening as well. And the driving philosophy is an unwavering commitment to the Gandhian way. There is no question in any of this-and remember the enterprise starts in 1937-about the essential verity of Gandhi. In this book, and in the documentary that appeared in 1940, the line is about the absolute certainty of Gandhi being the way ahead. Well, in many ways he was, of course, but it isnotable here that politics (Congress or others) scarcely figure. There is no sense that the Gandhi of the early' 40s was operating in a context very different from that of, say, preWorld War I days. Of course, the apolitical Gandhi is one of the reasons he lasted so long as a major figure: he was a national figure rather than a political one, even though his goals could be read politically. For that very reason, of course, the book and the documentary come through as pre-modern. This was and is no 'investigative journalism' piece. The public Gandhi that emerges is the one of the standard books of old: Gandhi the committed, Gandhi the allseeing, Gandhi the always correct, Gandhi the undoubting. People respect, admire, and are in thrall to Gandhi here. In effect, the film was as much hagiography and propaganda as it was "documentary" as here described. Now, we know that language changes. When we think "documentary" now we think of questions." "Documentary" then, however, was really about co.mpilation. Chettiar scoured film archives everywhere in his labour of love, to put together the most comprehensive account possible of everything that the Mahatma had done. And it was moving, as demonstrated by its huge success-whoever has seen the flickering images of the SalfMarch, for example, could not fail to be moved. Nonetheless, this is t,he public Gandhi, the unquestioned Gandhi, and' , one of the special things about the man is that the view has prevailed for so long, When questioned, even now, most people including mosnchool kids know "Gandhi", but the Gandhi they know is the unquestioned one, It is' hard to think of another case like that-even Mother Teresa has had an "expose" (and despite it being by Christopher Hitchens it,has dented the image), let alone a string of political figures running from Churchill through to Kennedy via the more obvious candidates like Stalin. The essential question, of course, is "why?" Here, anyone's guess isas good as any'one else's, but the locus must be somewhere in the public and popular yearning for leaders with simple goals, simple methods, transparency, and selflessness, These days that is ail itnpossible combination, but even back then it was an unlikely one. There is no doubt that the work of people like Chettiar had a great deal to do with the perseverance of the image, bUtthe work (on the evidence here, at any rate, and in most other readings) rarely if ever gives any real hint as to what the compilers really thought. Did they all really like Gandhi, for example, because for a man with a simple image he had a BIBLIO

What Harilal Gandhi: a Life really demonstrates is the power of the "public" Gandhi over the "private" one. Even though it sets out to explore the complexities of the father-son relationship and, so, indirectly highlights another aspect of Gandhi, it does so only in veiled terms. The . Gandhian world made by A. K. Chettiar and others far outweighs the inner Gandhian world attempted by Chandulal Bhagubhai Dalal. In a day when a prurient press will go after almost anyone, it is remarkable that Gandhi still stands almost untouched. That alone might be the single most significant testament to the aura in which he is still held

. attracted the attention of some particularly complex character? That iswhere the second book comes aUthorities or other, and in the eyes of a now more intrusive media would have in, because this begins to explore the inner Gandhi world, the private Gandhi. probably made him a much less likeable It tells the troubled life of Gandhi's figure. eldest son, and the conflict that What this book really demonstrates, prevailed between the two. This was though, is the power of the "public" the Harilal Gandhi afflicted with Gandhi over the "private" one. Even problems of alcohol and relationships, though it sets out to explore the the Harilal Gandhi whQ briefly complexities of the father-son converted to Islam; the Harilal Gandhi relationship and, so, indirectlyhighlights irrevocably alienated from his father, a another aspect of Gandhi, it does so devastating condition for any son let only in veiled terms. There are implicit alone the son of one of history's great rather than explicit comments and figures. None of this showed up in the suggestions and queries, and enormous Chettiar film or book, of course, and it sympathy for Harilal, but there is no direct confrontation of the fact that must be said that Chandulal Bhagubhai Gandhi might not have been the ideal Dalal's book is no Kitty Kelley effort, and stands effectively untouched from father or family figure. The Gandhian its first appearance in 1977, although world made by A.K. Chettiar and Tridip Suhrud has referenced it others, that is, far outweighs the inntr exhaustively, Gandhian world attempted by The original Preface essentially sets Chandulal Bhagubhai Dalal. In a day OUt the schema: Gandhiji's views, when a prurient press will go after beliefs and actions did not come easily almost anyone, it is remarkable that Gandhi still stands almost untouched. to him, he worked hard to attain them, set very high goals for himself, and That alone might be the single most expected the same level of social significant' i'est"ment to the aura in which he is still held. performance from his family. One of the Gandhi letters from 1932, for There have, of course, been example, has the Mahatma saying that exhaustive biographies and psychofamily members "should not marry and analytical works and the rest done on th,?se who are married should practice the man, so the question now iswhether ,there is that much more to learn. If brahmacharya." As we might say now, that is a "big call" to make for your there is, it is probably in this private family, and one that pays scant sphere because as the life of Harilal attention to the individual personalities shows, even in clouded expression, there was stress and tension and conflict in and ambitions of those family members as indIviduals. It also suggesrs the family. How did that weigh on "Gandhi and how much did it drive the a certain air of autocracy in approach: choosing celibacy is one thing, having it . public persona? Who knew aboUt its full ramifications, and how much were imposed another altogether, even if it was framed in the wider sense. The they prep'aced to ignore in order to Preface goes on to wonder that had capitalise on the public man? Gandhi's Harilal been guid'ed differently, allowed sway goes unquestioned, but the costs to study as he wanted; and been given to him and others in exercising th:.t sway remain undetailed for the most social warmth inside his family, might he well have had a different life to the part. one he took up? To conclude on a global note: this On one reading, that is code for reviewwas written while on assignment "what was-Gall.dhijilike as a [ather, and in The Hashemite Kingdom ofJordan, as a person?" .The answer is no more a country which sees itself as a haven forthco!l]ing here, however, than it is in of calm in the midst of surrounding almost all other accounts. For any turbulence bUt which itself, obviously, casual reader, Gandhi "the person" is is subject to the pressures propelling conflict and strife. Amidst allthe books virtually unapproachable, and amidst the vast array of works on him it is in Arabic carried by the street sellers extremely difficult to get a gli\!lpse of "downtown", there peering oUt from the cover of one is that familiar face that person, save in (mostly) guarded allusions in some specialist works. At with the round glasses and quirky grin. any level some of Gandhi's social The Selected Writings are as in demand actions, behaviour, statements and in Amman as anywhere else, confirming commentaries suggest a difference to Gandhi's ongoing attraction for the the point of eccentricity, even oddity. world even if, as a person, he is still a In fact, in a modern world some of his mystery. . practices would probably have

: JULY.

AUGUST 6

2007