What do you think?
Rate this book
The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan
The partitioning of British India into independent Pakistan and India in August 1947 occurred in the midst of communal holocaust, with Hindus and Sikhs on one side and Muslims on the other. More than 750,000 people were butchered, and 12 million fled their homes -- primarily in caravans of bullock-carts -- to seek refuge across the new it was the largest exodus in history. Sixty-seven years later, it is as if that August never ended.
Renowned historian and journalist Dilip Hiro provides a riveting account of the relationship between India and Pakistan, tracing the landmark events that led to the division of the sub-continent and the evolution of the contentious relationship between Hindus and Muslims. To this day, a reasonable resolution to their dispute has proved elusive, and the Line of Control in Kashmir remains the most heavily fortified frontier in the world, with 400,000 soldiers arrayed on either side.
Since partition, there have been several acute crises between the neighbors, including the secession of East Pakistan to form an independent Bangladesh in 1971, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides resulting in a scarcely avoided confrontation in 1999 and again in 2002. Hiro amply demonstrates the geopolitical importance of the India-Pakistan conflict by chronicling their respective ties not only with America and the Soviet Union, but also with China, Israel, and Afghanistan.
Hiro weaves these threads into a lucid narrative, enlivened with colorful biographies of leaders, vivid descriptions of wars, sensational assassinations, gross violations of human rights -- and cultural signifiers like cricket matches. The Longest August is incomparable in its scope and presents the first definitive history of one of the world's longest-running and most intractable conflicts.
Renowned historian and journalist Dilip Hiro provides a riveting account of the relationship between India and Pakistan, tracing the landmark events that led to the division of the sub-continent and the evolution of the contentious relationship between Hindus and Muslims. To this day, a reasonable resolution to their dispute has proved elusive, and the Line of Control in Kashmir remains the most heavily fortified frontier in the world, with 400,000 soldiers arrayed on either side.
Since partition, there have been several acute crises between the neighbors, including the secession of East Pakistan to form an independent Bangladesh in 1971, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides resulting in a scarcely avoided confrontation in 1999 and again in 2002. Hiro amply demonstrates the geopolitical importance of the India-Pakistan conflict by chronicling their respective ties not only with America and the Soviet Union, but also with China, Israel, and Afghanistan.
Hiro weaves these threads into a lucid narrative, enlivened with colorful biographies of leaders, vivid descriptions of wars, sensational assassinations, gross violations of human rights -- and cultural signifiers like cricket matches. The Longest August is incomparable in its scope and presents the first definitive history of one of the world's longest-running and most intractable conflicts.
528 pages, Hardcover
First published February 24, 2015
40 people are currently reading
616 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
December 11, 2015
This is a very readable account of not only the great partition of Indian subcontinent, but also the subsequent tumult that ensued between the two states of India and Pakistan. Hiro is very impressed by Jinnah, as are many other writers whom I have read so far, but He has done justice to Gandhi who spearheaded the campaign for independence. The early chapters dealing with pre-partition era, are meticulous and very well written. But it gets hasty because the narrative has to follow the events going on in the two countries with a very different political landscape. The important events have been covered very well but an overall analysis of the entire history of this discord and rivalry is nowhere to be found.
A good introduction to the history of Indo-Pak relations.
A good introduction to the history of Indo-Pak relations.
February 4, 2017
A grand history of the rivalry between India and Pakistan, from 1947 to today
A fast paced overview of the diplomatic tensions, wars and resulting politics between the two great mammoths on the Indian subcontinent. It is dry and objective, without much explaining and relates to facts in a kind of summizing view. Lot of characters are introduced, with a small biography and how they trim their moustaches. In the end, 2,5 stars. For a more in depth overview, this is not the one you'll need.
A fast paced overview of the diplomatic tensions, wars and resulting politics between the two great mammoths on the Indian subcontinent. It is dry and objective, without much explaining and relates to facts in a kind of summizing view. Lot of characters are introduced, with a small biography and how they trim their moustaches. In the end, 2,5 stars. For a more in depth overview, this is not the one you'll need.
October 11, 2015
This book details the history of India and Pakistan from the early 20th Century prior to World War I to present day as nuclear power countries. Following World War II Asia was still very unsettled with China in turmoil and later Korea. When the British withdrew from India as a colony tensions between India and Pakistan surfaced in August 1947. The divide was over race, religion, democracy and Sharia law. Disagreements over boundaries between the neighboring countries created dissention along with war that lingered for decades. In the early 21st Century India constructed a 375 mile sophisticated double wide 12’ wire fence with land mines in between complete with high tech surveillance at cost of $864,000 per mile.
Throughout the book I found it interesting to follow the ebb and flow of influence along with financial and military aid from the U.S., Russia and China to India and Pakistan. Overall the book provided me with more than enough information on the subject.
During my textile career I have often come in contact with folks from India as well as some from Pakistan. My perception may be skewed through a business environment interacting with college educated individuals who often have advanced degrees but my first impression is with the many similarities. They tend to be professional through appearance, business attire, by maintaining good eye contact and as great listeners. The manners of those from India are exceptional.
It's not mentioned in the book but American industrialist Malcolm Forbes 1982 world tour in a hot air balloon is ingrained in my mind. When he touched down in Pakistan he and his entourage donned t-shirts stating “Capitalist Tools” and rode Harley Davidson motorcycles adorned with American flags through the streets and countryside with residents waving and cheering along the way. How times have changed. Today there is tension throughout much of the world. My hope is that the pendulum will swing back and the divide between India and Pakistan will ease over time.
Throughout the book I found it interesting to follow the ebb and flow of influence along with financial and military aid from the U.S., Russia and China to India and Pakistan. Overall the book provided me with more than enough information on the subject.
During my textile career I have often come in contact with folks from India as well as some from Pakistan. My perception may be skewed through a business environment interacting with college educated individuals who often have advanced degrees but my first impression is with the many similarities. They tend to be professional through appearance, business attire, by maintaining good eye contact and as great listeners. The manners of those from India are exceptional.
It's not mentioned in the book but American industrialist Malcolm Forbes 1982 world tour in a hot air balloon is ingrained in my mind. When he touched down in Pakistan he and his entourage donned t-shirts stating “Capitalist Tools” and rode Harley Davidson motorcycles adorned with American flags through the streets and countryside with residents waving and cheering along the way. How times have changed. Today there is tension throughout much of the world. My hope is that the pendulum will swing back and the divide between India and Pakistan will ease over time.
August 23, 2016
Easy Read, but it is mostly internet bullshit masquerading as facts.
There are a number of factual inaccuracies. But unlike other books, here the author has made no effort to cross-check facts.
To show how bad it is, here's one example: In Chapter 13 (Rajiv-Benazir Rapport) he mentions Operation Chanakya where RAW creates fake radical groups in Kashmir. Now, it is unusual for a covert op to be blatantly called Chanakya instead of something inconspicuous.
The first time I read this was in a Paki site - Defence Journal. It also appeared in other pakistani defence forums. Then Indian fanboys without verifying copied and shared it everywhere. Google 'Operation Chanakya' you will get click-bait article featuring the prowess of R&AW. Check the references. It's mostly wikipedia. Go to wikipedia. Check the references of Op Chanakya. And we're back to the same click-bait trash. Wah!
So naturally I checked the notes of the Dilip Hiro's book. The reference quoted (19) was 'Victoria Schofield - Kashmir in Conflict; India, Pakistan and the Unending War - Pg 172'. I could not find the reference to Op Chanakya in the her book.
There are lot of other biases and has used biased authors as references. The martyrs of Bangladesh Liberation War are numbered at 3 million, according to the Bengalis and Indians, but this figure does not appear in the book. Instead Ms.Tagore's smaller number of 1,00,000 finds a mention.
RAW finds a mention every second page. Seems like he copied from a pakistani blog.
There are a number of factual inaccuracies. But unlike other books, here the author has made no effort to cross-check facts.
To show how bad it is, here's one example: In Chapter 13 (Rajiv-Benazir Rapport) he mentions Operation Chanakya where RAW creates fake radical groups in Kashmir. Now, it is unusual for a covert op to be blatantly called Chanakya instead of something inconspicuous.
The first time I read this was in a Paki site - Defence Journal. It also appeared in other pakistani defence forums. Then Indian fanboys without verifying copied and shared it everywhere. Google 'Operation Chanakya' you will get click-bait article featuring the prowess of R&AW. Check the references. It's mostly wikipedia. Go to wikipedia. Check the references of Op Chanakya. And we're back to the same click-bait trash. Wah!
So naturally I checked the notes of the Dilip Hiro's book. The reference quoted (19) was 'Victoria Schofield - Kashmir in Conflict; India, Pakistan and the Unending War - Pg 172'. I could not find the reference to Op Chanakya in the her book.
There are lot of other biases and has used biased authors as references. The martyrs of Bangladesh Liberation War are numbered at 3 million, according to the Bengalis and Indians, but this figure does not appear in the book. Instead Ms.Tagore's smaller number of 1,00,000 finds a mention.
RAW finds a mention every second page. Seems like he copied from a pakistani blog.
February 11, 2016
When the British gave independence to India, it came at an excruciating price. The country was divided into two, in the name of religion and a bloody transfer of population between the countries. The British acceded to the demand of the Muslim League, acting as the voice of Indian Muslims. The Congress party opposed it at first, but it was fairly obvious to impartial observers to discern the strong justification for the cry for partition of the country – that the Hindus and Muslims are two nations. If we take a glance at the violent history of the subcontinent of the last 1200 years, it may be seen that the Muslims who mattered most came here by invasion and/or forced conversion. For 1000 years, their descendants subjugated the country until effectively challenged by the Rajputs and Marathas in the 18th century CE. But before they could achieve anything substantial, the British came along, conquering all the warring parties. 150 years under colonial rule taught the country to look at the wider world without the crippling restrictions imposed by religion. As it was evident that the country would be left with a democratic form of government based on universal adult franchise when the British leave for good, a section of the Muslims were worried at the prospect of the country being ruled by Hindus, who commanded a majority in numbers. For the most part, Indian Muslims never lived under Hindu rule in history. Perhaps if the Marathas had had a little more leeway in the 18th century, or if the British had came on the scene a hundred years later, Indian Muslims would have learned how to live peacefully and prosperously under a Hindu ruler. As it was, their apprehensions were understandable and the demands found acceptance by the colonial regime, who carved Pakistan out of India. Dilip Hiro, who had himself emigrated out of Pakistan after partition tells the story of the unflinching rivalry between the sister nations and the exacting toll it had claimed from both sides in term of men, money and resources, to say nothing about missed opportunities. The book essentially covers the period from 1900 to 2013.
It is an unwritten dictum in children’s comics that superheroes don’t fight each other. Who has seen Mandrake the Magician plotting against Phantom, or Spiderman? But in politics, when there is not enough maneuvering room for two tall leaders, tussle is bound to ensue. A classic example is illustrated in the first few chapters of the book, in the form of the cold war between Gandhi and Jinnah, Fathers of the Nation, respectively of India and Pakistan. The estrangement began right when Gandhi returned to India after his two decades long stint in South Africa. Jinnah was comfortable only with English, which he termed the only language in which he was sure not to make any mistakes. When he began a salutary speech for Gandhi in the reception organized in Bombay, he felt chided by Gandhi’s stickler for using Gujarati (the mother tongue of both) in the function. Jinnah abhorred Gandhi’s schemes for mass participation in his political programs. He was staunch supporter of legal procedures and for meetings behind closed doors to wrest more power for Indians. Even though the Muslim League was formed way back in 1906, its meetings were planned near to the dates of Congress meetings and in the same city, since Muslims were members of both organizations. When World War I ended, the Turkish sultan stood defeated, as he sided with the losing party in the war. He saw dismemberment of his empire which included the holiest sites of Islam. As he was also the caliph of Muslims worldwide, Indian Mussulmans were angered at the cavalier way in which this spiritual master was being treated by the British. Radicalization began in consequence to it, but Gandhi sided with Ali brothers in proceeding with Khilafat agitation to recuperate the king of Turkey. This had absolutely no political significance to India, which was then reeling in the aftermath of the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre, and was a clear case of mixing religion with politics to garner popular support. Jinnah opposed this move, but Gandhi was determined to use the communal plank. This set alight religious passion in copious quantities so as to spill over into many orgies of communal riots. As the Hindu and Muslim communities separated more and more in thinking, Jinnah changed his stance and sided with his own coreligionists. Here, one question faces us directly in the eye. If there was reconciliation between the two leaders and Jinnah remained secular and in Congress, would the idea of Pakistan ever have arisen? The answer would be an emphatic yes. Had Jinnah stayed back, he would have grown in stature like another Maulana Abul Kalam Azad – a leader to show off, but inconsequential. The predominantly Hindu Congress would not have allowed a Muslim to obtain absolute control over it. The separation of the two communities was a historical inevitability and if Jinnah was not in the picture, another Muslim leader would have donned that mantle. Hiro also mentions Gandhi’s dubious experiments involving his grand niece to attain moral merit by his abstinence from sexual desire which is to be helpful in his fight against Jinnah.
A contrasting picture of Jawaharlal Nehru against his image of a great scholarly national leader is painted by Hiro. Various instances are enumerated in the book that extols the fallacy of many acts perpetrated by India’s first prime minister. Nehru referred the Kashmir issue to the UN in response to Pakistan’s deploying its irregular troops into Kashmir and annexing a part of it. UN suggested a plebiscite which is the constant refrain on the part of Pakistan ever since. India strongly opposed any attempt to internationalize the issue, but it is highly embarrassing to it that the first move on this front was initiated by Nehru under the advice from Lord Mount Batten, India’s first governor general. Nehru maintained a haughty demeanour against other world leaders not matching him in their education, aristocratic background or scholarship. Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s military dictator, complained in private that Nehru look upon him with contempt. Nehru’s debacle against China resulted in loss of prestige for India in its disastrous war against its northern neighbour in 1962. The fuse is to said to have been lit by Nehru claiming the sanctity of the border between India and China as demarcated by McMahon as inviolable. China maintained that it had not ratified the border as did the existing maps. However, Nehru instructed that the boundary be made permanent and set up army posts in the disputed territory. This led to skirmishes which grew in intensity as both sides stuck to its guns. When Nehru ordered Indian troops to assault Chinese soldiers perceived to be crossing the border, China invaded on a large scale. Indian troops were unequal to meet the aggression. After imposing a humiliating defeat, the Chinese declared a unilateral ceasefire and returned to pre-war positions on the eastern front and Arunachal Pradesh, but not in Ladakh. Nehru’s boastful speeches on non-alignment with superpowers antagonized America right from the start, but during the Chinese incursion into the country, Nehru swallowed his pride and unashamedly begged US to provide military aid and equipment. Hiro also comments that India trained and deployed Tibetans to rebel against China, which irritated them greatly. However, he does not say a word against China’s forcible annexation of Tibet. Going by the author’s narrative, one gets the feel that Tibet had always remained a part of China and that India fomented trouble in a peaceful province of a neighbouring country.
Handling of history of the last three decades lacks sufficient depth, partly due to the fact that no epochal event such as a full scale war had materialized between the two countries. The narration falls to the level of a journal after the year 2000, expounding summit meetings and bilateral negotiations. It may be news to many people on both sides of the border to learn that the two countries had come to the brink of nuclear war in retaliation of the terrorist attack on Kaluchak army base in 2002. There is another reason for the lull in mutual engagement. As the economic clout of India grew, the disparity in GDP of the two countries widened.
Hiro includes an informative chapter on soft power exerted by India in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan is a factor to contend with, in any discussion on South Asia, as both India and Pakistan try to woo them in their proxy war against the other. India’s soft power is visible in the field of television and cinema. Dramatized Hindi serials are having wide viewership in both its western neighbours. Indian films have surpassed the appeal of movies made in Pakistan. However, in a clear indication that both countries are deeply permeated by the bigotry of sectarian religious views, scenes depicting Hindu idols or offering pujas are masked out in public screenings. It is no wonder then, to deduce the unseen channel fertilizing Jihadism and its export around the world. In the same token, it may be realized that the strong attraction of Bollywood movies in Pakistan is helped in no small measure by the monopoly of the three Khans in its actor list and the efforts of the Mumbai underworld to keep it so.
The author asserts many facts in his narrative, but the sources are not strong enough to guarantee its veracity. In a few cases, he opts for sensationalism with no strong card in hand. For example, he avers that Vajpayee, India’s prime minister from 1998 to 2004 was unmarried, but not celibate! How on earth can he substantiate this allegation in a meaningful way? Every author writing on such topics would love to have a bit of controversy to boost the publicity and sale of the book. The unnecessary tirade – whether true or not – on Vajpayee may be seen in that light. However, this remark didn’t provoke a controversy in India. Hiro takes special pleasure in belittling the stature of Indian leaders while being extra careful not to say anything about the personal lives of Pakistani leaders.
The book is eminently readable and highly recommended.
It is an unwritten dictum in children’s comics that superheroes don’t fight each other. Who has seen Mandrake the Magician plotting against Phantom, or Spiderman? But in politics, when there is not enough maneuvering room for two tall leaders, tussle is bound to ensue. A classic example is illustrated in the first few chapters of the book, in the form of the cold war between Gandhi and Jinnah, Fathers of the Nation, respectively of India and Pakistan. The estrangement began right when Gandhi returned to India after his two decades long stint in South Africa. Jinnah was comfortable only with English, which he termed the only language in which he was sure not to make any mistakes. When he began a salutary speech for Gandhi in the reception organized in Bombay, he felt chided by Gandhi’s stickler for using Gujarati (the mother tongue of both) in the function. Jinnah abhorred Gandhi’s schemes for mass participation in his political programs. He was staunch supporter of legal procedures and for meetings behind closed doors to wrest more power for Indians. Even though the Muslim League was formed way back in 1906, its meetings were planned near to the dates of Congress meetings and in the same city, since Muslims were members of both organizations. When World War I ended, the Turkish sultan stood defeated, as he sided with the losing party in the war. He saw dismemberment of his empire which included the holiest sites of Islam. As he was also the caliph of Muslims worldwide, Indian Mussulmans were angered at the cavalier way in which this spiritual master was being treated by the British. Radicalization began in consequence to it, but Gandhi sided with Ali brothers in proceeding with Khilafat agitation to recuperate the king of Turkey. This had absolutely no political significance to India, which was then reeling in the aftermath of the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre, and was a clear case of mixing religion with politics to garner popular support. Jinnah opposed this move, but Gandhi was determined to use the communal plank. This set alight religious passion in copious quantities so as to spill over into many orgies of communal riots. As the Hindu and Muslim communities separated more and more in thinking, Jinnah changed his stance and sided with his own coreligionists. Here, one question faces us directly in the eye. If there was reconciliation between the two leaders and Jinnah remained secular and in Congress, would the idea of Pakistan ever have arisen? The answer would be an emphatic yes. Had Jinnah stayed back, he would have grown in stature like another Maulana Abul Kalam Azad – a leader to show off, but inconsequential. The predominantly Hindu Congress would not have allowed a Muslim to obtain absolute control over it. The separation of the two communities was a historical inevitability and if Jinnah was not in the picture, another Muslim leader would have donned that mantle. Hiro also mentions Gandhi’s dubious experiments involving his grand niece to attain moral merit by his abstinence from sexual desire which is to be helpful in his fight against Jinnah.
A contrasting picture of Jawaharlal Nehru against his image of a great scholarly national leader is painted by Hiro. Various instances are enumerated in the book that extols the fallacy of many acts perpetrated by India’s first prime minister. Nehru referred the Kashmir issue to the UN in response to Pakistan’s deploying its irregular troops into Kashmir and annexing a part of it. UN suggested a plebiscite which is the constant refrain on the part of Pakistan ever since. India strongly opposed any attempt to internationalize the issue, but it is highly embarrassing to it that the first move on this front was initiated by Nehru under the advice from Lord Mount Batten, India’s first governor general. Nehru maintained a haughty demeanour against other world leaders not matching him in their education, aristocratic background or scholarship. Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s military dictator, complained in private that Nehru look upon him with contempt. Nehru’s debacle against China resulted in loss of prestige for India in its disastrous war against its northern neighbour in 1962. The fuse is to said to have been lit by Nehru claiming the sanctity of the border between India and China as demarcated by McMahon as inviolable. China maintained that it had not ratified the border as did the existing maps. However, Nehru instructed that the boundary be made permanent and set up army posts in the disputed territory. This led to skirmishes which grew in intensity as both sides stuck to its guns. When Nehru ordered Indian troops to assault Chinese soldiers perceived to be crossing the border, China invaded on a large scale. Indian troops were unequal to meet the aggression. After imposing a humiliating defeat, the Chinese declared a unilateral ceasefire and returned to pre-war positions on the eastern front and Arunachal Pradesh, but not in Ladakh. Nehru’s boastful speeches on non-alignment with superpowers antagonized America right from the start, but during the Chinese incursion into the country, Nehru swallowed his pride and unashamedly begged US to provide military aid and equipment. Hiro also comments that India trained and deployed Tibetans to rebel against China, which irritated them greatly. However, he does not say a word against China’s forcible annexation of Tibet. Going by the author’s narrative, one gets the feel that Tibet had always remained a part of China and that India fomented trouble in a peaceful province of a neighbouring country.
Handling of history of the last three decades lacks sufficient depth, partly due to the fact that no epochal event such as a full scale war had materialized between the two countries. The narration falls to the level of a journal after the year 2000, expounding summit meetings and bilateral negotiations. It may be news to many people on both sides of the border to learn that the two countries had come to the brink of nuclear war in retaliation of the terrorist attack on Kaluchak army base in 2002. There is another reason for the lull in mutual engagement. As the economic clout of India grew, the disparity in GDP of the two countries widened.
Hiro includes an informative chapter on soft power exerted by India in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan is a factor to contend with, in any discussion on South Asia, as both India and Pakistan try to woo them in their proxy war against the other. India’s soft power is visible in the field of television and cinema. Dramatized Hindi serials are having wide viewership in both its western neighbours. Indian films have surpassed the appeal of movies made in Pakistan. However, in a clear indication that both countries are deeply permeated by the bigotry of sectarian religious views, scenes depicting Hindu idols or offering pujas are masked out in public screenings. It is no wonder then, to deduce the unseen channel fertilizing Jihadism and its export around the world. In the same token, it may be realized that the strong attraction of Bollywood movies in Pakistan is helped in no small measure by the monopoly of the three Khans in its actor list and the efforts of the Mumbai underworld to keep it so.
The author asserts many facts in his narrative, but the sources are not strong enough to guarantee its veracity. In a few cases, he opts for sensationalism with no strong card in hand. For example, he avers that Vajpayee, India’s prime minister from 1998 to 2004 was unmarried, but not celibate! How on earth can he substantiate this allegation in a meaningful way? Every author writing on such topics would love to have a bit of controversy to boost the publicity and sale of the book. The unnecessary tirade – whether true or not – on Vajpayee may be seen in that light. However, this remark didn’t provoke a controversy in India. Hiro takes special pleasure in belittling the stature of Indian leaders while being extra careful not to say anything about the personal lives of Pakistani leaders.
The book is eminently readable and highly recommended.
July 15, 2017
History is not science. This fact is so strongly forced upon the reader by Dilip Hiro that it cannot but color every aspect of the narrative you have in your hand.
"The Longest August" is a catchy title and promises a cold, hard look at the origins and development of one of the trickiest and most dangerous national rivalries in the world today, The question that is the India-Pakistan enmity is fraught with as many dangers to the person who attempt to answer it as the actual enmity holds for Asia and, indeed, the entire world. Passions run high on both sides of the Radcliffe line and words can be as explosives.
It is this minefield that Hiro attempts to map out, and uses a mallet for a metal detector. The ambit of the book is wide. Starting from the latter decades of the nineteenth century and carrying on up to 2015. The work is comprehensive in that fwe events of note are missed out. From Jinnah's early antipathy towards the Muslim League to the 1935 elections to the partition politics, the four wars, the different courses that the governments of the two countries ended up charting, the complex interplay of the ambitions and fears of the world's superpowers, Kashmir, Afghanistan- there's little that hasn't met the author's eye. From this viewpoint alone, the book is a great crash-course in recent South Asian history.
It's the subjectiveness of the author that muddies the waters though. While taking care not to introduce himself into the narrative, Hiro is unable or unwilling to not let his bias shine through. His barely disguised disgust for Mahatma Gandhi, his dislike for Nehru and Patel, in fact for pretty much all of India is plain to see. It's his use of adjectives that gives him away. If we are to believe his story unquestioningly then India as a nation is the villain of the whole piece. Surrounded by honest, well meaning neighbors, India's mean-spiritedness, duality of voice, selfishness of character and sheer treachery are what have led to every war in the subcontinent, and led two nuclear nations to the brink of annihilation. Pakistan and China are unwillingly forced to do whatever they do throughout the period. And this is Hiro's Achilles' Heel.
I am, by no means, naive enough to believe that in all these regional conflicts the blame lies on one side alone. I realize both parties have had to play a part. The author, though, is almost unbelievably blind to this viewpoint.
I could go on about the biased commentary and the sheer one-sidedness of the narrative but I will end with two examples -
1. While India gets squarely blamed for 1962, Pakistan is not similarly treated for 1948, 1965, 1971 or 1999.
2. Pakistan's support to Sikh militants through the 1980s is barely mentioned (even Kashmir is begrudgingly accepted), India's support to Baluchi militants is highlighted time and again.
3. This is how Hiro describes the unveiling of Gandhi's statue in Washington DC, "a bronze statue of the semi-naked, striding Mahatma, armed with a walking stick..."
Now you might think that I am biased against the author, being an Indian. I invite you to read the book and draw your own conclusions, it is still informative, if off-balance.
"The Longest August" is a catchy title and promises a cold, hard look at the origins and development of one of the trickiest and most dangerous national rivalries in the world today, The question that is the India-Pakistan enmity is fraught with as many dangers to the person who attempt to answer it as the actual enmity holds for Asia and, indeed, the entire world. Passions run high on both sides of the Radcliffe line and words can be as explosives.
It is this minefield that Hiro attempts to map out, and uses a mallet for a metal detector. The ambit of the book is wide. Starting from the latter decades of the nineteenth century and carrying on up to 2015. The work is comprehensive in that fwe events of note are missed out. From Jinnah's early antipathy towards the Muslim League to the 1935 elections to the partition politics, the four wars, the different courses that the governments of the two countries ended up charting, the complex interplay of the ambitions and fears of the world's superpowers, Kashmir, Afghanistan- there's little that hasn't met the author's eye. From this viewpoint alone, the book is a great crash-course in recent South Asian history.
It's the subjectiveness of the author that muddies the waters though. While taking care not to introduce himself into the narrative, Hiro is unable or unwilling to not let his bias shine through. His barely disguised disgust for Mahatma Gandhi, his dislike for Nehru and Patel, in fact for pretty much all of India is plain to see. It's his use of adjectives that gives him away. If we are to believe his story unquestioningly then India as a nation is the villain of the whole piece. Surrounded by honest, well meaning neighbors, India's mean-spiritedness, duality of voice, selfishness of character and sheer treachery are what have led to every war in the subcontinent, and led two nuclear nations to the brink of annihilation. Pakistan and China are unwillingly forced to do whatever they do throughout the period. And this is Hiro's Achilles' Heel.
I am, by no means, naive enough to believe that in all these regional conflicts the blame lies on one side alone. I realize both parties have had to play a part. The author, though, is almost unbelievably blind to this viewpoint.
I could go on about the biased commentary and the sheer one-sidedness of the narrative but I will end with two examples -
1. While India gets squarely blamed for 1962, Pakistan is not similarly treated for 1948, 1965, 1971 or 1999.
2. Pakistan's support to Sikh militants through the 1980s is barely mentioned (even Kashmir is begrudgingly accepted), India's support to Baluchi militants is highlighted time and again.
3. This is how Hiro describes the unveiling of Gandhi's statue in Washington DC, "a bronze statue of the semi-naked, striding Mahatma, armed with a walking stick..."
Now you might think that I am biased against the author, being an Indian. I invite you to read the book and draw your own conclusions, it is still informative, if off-balance.
February 27, 2019
Dilip Hiro is one of the best to go for the Middle East and Asia. This is no exception. All you need to know about the India-Pakistan conflict plus lots of personality glimpses of the main actors. As usual, the author strives for detachment and succeeds, making some of the protagonists look quite ridiculous. Very readable, highly recommended
November 24, 2022
Eye opening.
March 28, 2016
This is a pretty definitive grand history of modern India and Pakistan, offering a fair look at the factors that led up to Partition and relations between the two countries since then. The book starts off offering a very gripping narrative but then fatigue seems to set in around the final pages where it becomes more like a textbook. Nonetheless the level of detail and insight makes it more or less required reading for those interested in the subject, as well as in the future trajectory that India-Pakistan relations might take. The author is fairly optimistic on this front, and paints a compelling picture of a subcontinent at odds with itself but ultimately still part of the same historic entity.
June 19, 2015
The book is a fantastic overview of the rivalry between India and Pakistan. He explains in great detail about the beginning. It was not just statement of facts but also anecdotes which made all the history very interesting.
Given that he had to cover more than 80 years, it is difficult to explain every individual episode. But book gives an overarching view and is an easy primer for anyone trying to understand the rivalry.
Given that he had to cover more than 80 years, it is difficult to explain every individual episode. But book gives an overarching view and is an easy primer for anyone trying to understand the rivalry.
September 18, 2015
Dilip Hiro writes on many contemporary geopolitical subjects and always with a balanced voice. This is probably his best work which I have so far read. His sympathy and criticism for both of the actors he examines are on full display in equal measure and his understanding of the context of events which have taken place in the run up to and in the aftermath of India and Pakistan's partition is enlightening to behold.
August 20, 2015
Despite a couple of factual errors, a must-read for anyone with interest in this subject.
November 20, 2018
The strength of this study is the first third which chronicles how the end of British rule over India produced two warring states and an arms race in the Third World that would ultimately go nuclear. The portraits of Gandhi and Jinnah as politicians provide a much needed correction to their whitewashed presentation in most Western literature. After describing the Bangladesh War, the middle third of the book becomes a litany of political figures virtually unknown outside South Asia. The final third which begins with the coup that brought Musharraf to power and the Crisis of 2002, is much better. It explains why the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir remains hopelessly tangled up in the Global War on Terror. Covering more than a century of Indo-Pakistani history, this isn't the definitive account of any one period or decade, but this well-written, reasonably detailed history provides valuable context for recent events in South Asia, something woefully lacking in the sporadic coverage of the region by Western news media.
January 11, 2025
This is an interesting narrative of the relationship between India and Pakistan and manages to be very balanced in examining who bears culpability. Of all the books about partition it is one of the most critical of Nehru which is interesting. The conclusion could perhaps of been more analytical but overall very readable and interesting.
November 15, 2018
Must read for all those interested in India-Pakistan rivalry
November 25, 2020
Good overview of India/Pakistan history. Not well edited.
December 31, 2024
Great geo political narrative of that region, all the major players and how it has shaped the region since independence from Britain
September 4, 2024
The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry Between India and Pakistan by Dilip Hiro is a deeply researched account of the tumultuous history and complex relationship between two of South Asia’s most significant nations—India and Pakistan. Hiro delves into the origins of their rivalry, starting from the colonial period under British rule to the partition of India in 1947, and traces the ongoing political, military, and cultural tensions that have shaped the dynamics between the two countries for over seven decades.
The title refers to the month of August 1947, when the Indian subcontinent was partitioned into two independent nations—Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. The partition resulted in one of the largest mass migrations in human history, with widespread violence and the displacement of millions of people. This historical moment is pivotal in understanding the deep-rooted animosity between the two nations, and Hiro meticulously details the events leading up to it, the political miscalculations, and the personal ambitions that played a role in this tragic outcome.
Hiro's narrative spans from the historical roots of the India-Pakistan conflict, including the role of the British in exacerbating tensions, to the key players involved in partition, such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and Mahatma Gandhi. He also explores the decades that followed, with multiple wars between the two nations, the territorial disputes over Kashmir, the nuclear arms race, and the rise of religious extremism that has fueled cross-border terrorism.
One of the strengths of The Longest August is Hiro’s ability to weave historical events with personal stories, humanizing the otherwise complex political conflict. He draws on a wide range of sources, from government documents to interviews, allowing the reader to grasp the nuances of the relationship between India and Pakistan. His analysis of the Kashmir dispute, one of the core issues driving the rivalry, is particularly insightful, offering perspectives from both sides of the border while examining the broader geopolitical ramifications of the conflict.
Hiro also delves into the broader implications of the rivalry for global security, particularly in the post-9/11 world. The nuclearization of both countries and the increasing influence of external powers, such as the United States and China, add further layers to the complexity of the region. The book highlights how the unresolved conflict between India and Pakistan has not only destabilized South Asia but has also influenced global strategic calculations.
However, The Longest August can be a dense read at times, given the sheer volume of historical detail and the complexity of the political landscape. Readers unfamiliar with South Asian history may find themselves overwhelmed by the extensive coverage of events, personalities, and shifting alliances. Additionally, while Hiro does an admirable job of presenting both sides of the conflict, some readers might feel that certain episodes or figures are not examined with the same critical lens.
Overall, The Longest August is an essential read for anyone seeking to understand the deeply entrenched rivalry between India and Pakistan. It provides a comprehensive overview of the factors that have kept the two nations locked in a state of hostility and explores the profound human cost of this ongoing conflict. Hiro’s work is an important contribution to the field of South Asian history and international relations, offering both a historical and contemporary analysis of one of the most enduring and dangerous rivalries in the world.
The title refers to the month of August 1947, when the Indian subcontinent was partitioned into two independent nations—Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. The partition resulted in one of the largest mass migrations in human history, with widespread violence and the displacement of millions of people. This historical moment is pivotal in understanding the deep-rooted animosity between the two nations, and Hiro meticulously details the events leading up to it, the political miscalculations, and the personal ambitions that played a role in this tragic outcome.
Hiro's narrative spans from the historical roots of the India-Pakistan conflict, including the role of the British in exacerbating tensions, to the key players involved in partition, such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and Mahatma Gandhi. He also explores the decades that followed, with multiple wars between the two nations, the territorial disputes over Kashmir, the nuclear arms race, and the rise of religious extremism that has fueled cross-border terrorism.
One of the strengths of The Longest August is Hiro’s ability to weave historical events with personal stories, humanizing the otherwise complex political conflict. He draws on a wide range of sources, from government documents to interviews, allowing the reader to grasp the nuances of the relationship between India and Pakistan. His analysis of the Kashmir dispute, one of the core issues driving the rivalry, is particularly insightful, offering perspectives from both sides of the border while examining the broader geopolitical ramifications of the conflict.
Hiro also delves into the broader implications of the rivalry for global security, particularly in the post-9/11 world. The nuclearization of both countries and the increasing influence of external powers, such as the United States and China, add further layers to the complexity of the region. The book highlights how the unresolved conflict between India and Pakistan has not only destabilized South Asia but has also influenced global strategic calculations.
However, The Longest August can be a dense read at times, given the sheer volume of historical detail and the complexity of the political landscape. Readers unfamiliar with South Asian history may find themselves overwhelmed by the extensive coverage of events, personalities, and shifting alliances. Additionally, while Hiro does an admirable job of presenting both sides of the conflict, some readers might feel that certain episodes or figures are not examined with the same critical lens.
Overall, The Longest August is an essential read for anyone seeking to understand the deeply entrenched rivalry between India and Pakistan. It provides a comprehensive overview of the factors that have kept the two nations locked in a state of hostility and explores the profound human cost of this ongoing conflict. Hiro’s work is an important contribution to the field of South Asian history and international relations, offering both a historical and contemporary analysis of one of the most enduring and dangerous rivalries in the world.
January 12, 2017
Dilip Hiro is not the most objective author, but he does try his best to be. While he does have slightly more contempt for the Indian characters and government than he does for the Pakistani ones, he does his best to be equally critical of both. In this, he is only partially successful.
I, as I am sure most readers of such subjects do, like reading about both sides of a story. I then like to draw my own conclusions. Based on what I'll call the basic human moral compass, it is hard to have an ambiguous stance on the most straightforward of events. But, where the lines thin are when authors begin to not just suggest but push their own theories on the motivations of certain people and the justifications for the acts they committed. In that, this book is a mixed bag. There are several times when Dilip seems to make an argument that seems to overlook the simplest of considerations. Especially when it comes to India Dilip keeps pointing to Jawaharlal Nehru's Brahmin-Hindu upbringing and how that may have contributed to his pro-Hindu sympathies. But Dilip quite frankly cheats his readers as he fails to mention that not only was Jawahar an atheist, but so was his father. In fact, Jawahar was a secularist who wanted India to be a secular democracy. And so, whether you love or hate India, the country is a secular democracy (at least politically). Unlike Pakistan, which continues to be a Muslim nation has constantly been torn from the inside.
Dilip's biggest blunder is his inability to understand the role of Wahabi Islam and sharia-law literalists.
While Dilip does understand that religion played a huge part of the India-Pakistan divide and points that out, that isn't that impressive. Even the layman can point to the Hindu-Muslim divide as a major contributing factor into the division of Pakistan from India. But, he fails to point out how religion especially Islam was used as a tool by the higher-ups to fight their geo-political battles. Islamic terrorists have repeatedly conducted terrorist attacks in both India and Afghanistan that is to say that the Pakistani government indirectly funded terrorist groups to undermine India’s influence over the Kashmir issue.
Let me be clear though. I do not blame Islam alone. Sikh terrorists as well contributed to unrest in India. Let us also not forget the Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a far-right Hindu fundamentalist. Having said that, a nation based on Islam will breed communalism which can then be used to propagate the ‘other’ as the enemy far easier than if you were to unite a mixed population (like say, that of India).
Also, as I was going through the notes I realized, that on multiple occasions, the author cites his previous books as a source. While, this works in theory (if you correctly researched your first book), you cannot be lazy as a writer who claims to be an objective analyst.
Overall, it is a great book to read if you are not aware of the history between India and Pakistan pre and post 1947. The book is pretty comprehensive that way. You will find that the author is ever-so slightly sympathetic to the plight of Pakistan and tends to find excuses for their poor state instead of blaming internal parties. This however is not too big of a problem and never reaches Roger Stone/Bill O’Reilly level of deception. The writer seems elitist and made it obvious when he referred to Henry Kissinger’s book as a source of, as he seemed to imply, inarguably accurate nuclear-weapons policy. If you’re truly objective, you cannot cite Henry Kissinger as a source of sanity for policies on war.
Cheers!
I, as I am sure most readers of such subjects do, like reading about both sides of a story. I then like to draw my own conclusions. Based on what I'll call the basic human moral compass, it is hard to have an ambiguous stance on the most straightforward of events. But, where the lines thin are when authors begin to not just suggest but push their own theories on the motivations of certain people and the justifications for the acts they committed. In that, this book is a mixed bag. There are several times when Dilip seems to make an argument that seems to overlook the simplest of considerations. Especially when it comes to India Dilip keeps pointing to Jawaharlal Nehru's Brahmin-Hindu upbringing and how that may have contributed to his pro-Hindu sympathies. But Dilip quite frankly cheats his readers as he fails to mention that not only was Jawahar an atheist, but so was his father. In fact, Jawahar was a secularist who wanted India to be a secular democracy. And so, whether you love or hate India, the country is a secular democracy (at least politically). Unlike Pakistan, which continues to be a Muslim nation has constantly been torn from the inside.
Dilip's biggest blunder is his inability to understand the role of Wahabi Islam and sharia-law literalists.
While Dilip does understand that religion played a huge part of the India-Pakistan divide and points that out, that isn't that impressive. Even the layman can point to the Hindu-Muslim divide as a major contributing factor into the division of Pakistan from India. But, he fails to point out how religion especially Islam was used as a tool by the higher-ups to fight their geo-political battles. Islamic terrorists have repeatedly conducted terrorist attacks in both India and Afghanistan that is to say that the Pakistani government indirectly funded terrorist groups to undermine India’s influence over the Kashmir issue.
Let me be clear though. I do not blame Islam alone. Sikh terrorists as well contributed to unrest in India. Let us also not forget the Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a far-right Hindu fundamentalist. Having said that, a nation based on Islam will breed communalism which can then be used to propagate the ‘other’ as the enemy far easier than if you were to unite a mixed population (like say, that of India).
Also, as I was going through the notes I realized, that on multiple occasions, the author cites his previous books as a source. While, this works in theory (if you correctly researched your first book), you cannot be lazy as a writer who claims to be an objective analyst.
Overall, it is a great book to read if you are not aware of the history between India and Pakistan pre and post 1947. The book is pretty comprehensive that way. You will find that the author is ever-so slightly sympathetic to the plight of Pakistan and tends to find excuses for their poor state instead of blaming internal parties. This however is not too big of a problem and never reaches Roger Stone/Bill O’Reilly level of deception. The writer seems elitist and made it obvious when he referred to Henry Kissinger’s book as a source of, as he seemed to imply, inarguably accurate nuclear-weapons policy. If you’re truly objective, you cannot cite Henry Kissinger as a source of sanity for policies on war.
Cheers!
September 19, 2016
This history has exceptional detail and inside information regarding the continuing war between India and Pakistan. Did you know that....
1. Nuclear war in 2003 was considered so certain that the United States withdrew all of its embassy staff from Delhi?
2. Pakistan still refuses to state that it will not use nuclear weapons first, and reserves the right to deploy nuclear weapons in any conflict that it deems to significantly endanger Pakistani sovereignty?
3. Pakistan provided more than 60,000 volunteers to fight for the Taliban in Afghanistan? ...and continues to harbor the potential for hundreds of thousands of volunteers to fight on the side of radical Islam in any future conflict?
The book fails to explore where these radical volunteers, many of them suicide-ready, come from. For decades, the private elementary schools (madrassa schools) all over Pakistan have openly indoctrinated boys with the "Hate America / Kill Americans" ideology that is preached by the most radical Imams. These boys are now in their 20's, 30's, and 40's. Why should anyone be surprised that the supply of terrorists and suicide bombers seems endless?
1. Nuclear war in 2003 was considered so certain that the United States withdrew all of its embassy staff from Delhi?
2. Pakistan still refuses to state that it will not use nuclear weapons first, and reserves the right to deploy nuclear weapons in any conflict that it deems to significantly endanger Pakistani sovereignty?
3. Pakistan provided more than 60,000 volunteers to fight for the Taliban in Afghanistan? ...and continues to harbor the potential for hundreds of thousands of volunteers to fight on the side of radical Islam in any future conflict?
The book fails to explore where these radical volunteers, many of them suicide-ready, come from. For decades, the private elementary schools (madrassa schools) all over Pakistan have openly indoctrinated boys with the "Hate America / Kill Americans" ideology that is preached by the most radical Imams. These boys are now in their 20's, 30's, and 40's. Why should anyone be surprised that the supply of terrorists and suicide bombers seems endless?
December 26, 2016
A good overview of the history of the often-angry-at-each-other neighbors. I, being a Pakistani, found the author mostly unbiased. However, at some places, he does seem to be biased. This can be due to my own bias, or because the information available to the author was faulty. By far, he tried to be as unbiased as he could be, or so it felt to me. Overall, I would recommend it for people wanting to study about the Indo-Pak history, but would recommend other books for specific topics for those who want to go deeper into the details.
May 14, 2015
"The assuming of power by the Congress Party exposed the fault line between Hindu nationalists and secular nationalists within it. Secular nationalists perceived the anti-imperialist movement as aiming to end Britain's imperial rule and transform the enslaved Indian into a sovereign state. But Hindu nationalists, who took a longer view of India's history and formed a significant part of the Congress, regarded the party as the vehicle to end the subjugation that the Hindu majority had suffered since 1192, when the Afghan conquerors set up a sultanate in Delhi." (66)
"According to India's 1951 census of displaced persons, 7.226 million Muslims migrated to East and West Pakistan from India, while 7.249 million Hindus and Sikhs moved in the other direction." (109)
"[With the loss of East Pakistan] Jinnah's Pakistan had lost more than half of its population, as well as its main source of foreign exchange earned by the export of jute from its eastern wing. ... The secession of East Pakistan proved that a common religion was not a strong enough glue to hold together two societies with different languages, cuisines, cultures, and historical backgrounds. The trumping of religion by ethnic nationalism was a bitter pill to swallow not only for West Pakistani people and politicians but also for those in Indian Kashmir who advocated accession to Pakistan." (218-19)
"Orthodox Muslims envisaged a Muslim state run according to the Sharia. Muslim landlords felt assured of the continuation of the zamidari (landlord) system, which the Congress had vowed to abolish. Muslim businessmen savored the prospect of fresh markets in Pakistan free from Hindu competition. Civil servants foresaw rapid promotion in the fledgling state. These perceptions among Muslims grew in an environment in which Hindus were much better off economically than Muslims." (415)
"According to India's 1951 census of displaced persons, 7.226 million Muslims migrated to East and West Pakistan from India, while 7.249 million Hindus and Sikhs moved in the other direction." (109)
"[With the loss of East Pakistan] Jinnah's Pakistan had lost more than half of its population, as well as its main source of foreign exchange earned by the export of jute from its eastern wing. ... The secession of East Pakistan proved that a common religion was not a strong enough glue to hold together two societies with different languages, cuisines, cultures, and historical backgrounds. The trumping of religion by ethnic nationalism was a bitter pill to swallow not only for West Pakistani people and politicians but also for those in Indian Kashmir who advocated accession to Pakistan." (218-19)
"Orthodox Muslims envisaged a Muslim state run according to the Sharia. Muslim landlords felt assured of the continuation of the zamidari (landlord) system, which the Congress had vowed to abolish. Muslim businessmen savored the prospect of fresh markets in Pakistan free from Hindu competition. Civil servants foresaw rapid promotion in the fledgling state. These perceptions among Muslims grew in an environment in which Hindus were much better off economically than Muslims." (415)
May 1, 2015
Quite a readable and comprehensive account of the most beguiling and illogical relations between two nations with a great deal in common (and a great deal of differences - both genuine and manufactured). Mr Hiro breaks new ground with his even-handed approach which identifies the ways where differences arose - and grew to become unbridgeable - and where the responsibility lay (though some parts may come as a surprise to a reader who has been conditioned by a particular view (including Gandhi's and the Congress party's miscalculations as well as the times when Pandit Nehru was in the wrong), not to mention the different view of the 1999 coup in Pakistan. But then the overview is frankly not needed and the author should have used the space to give his views of how the chasm can be bridged... On the other hand, the use of full names again and again are a trifle annoying (eg Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi or Muhammad Nawaz Sharif) or incorrect (Liquat Ali Khan on second reference should have Liquat Khan not Ali Khan). And then there are some niggling mistakes - Yaqub Khan was a Sahibzada, not Shahzada, Najibullah of Afghanistan was murdered in 1996, not 1992 (when he was only toppled), Zia contrived to have himself invited to Jaipur for the test (it was not a one day), Mohali is not a few miles from the Pakistan border, and Ahmed Shah Massoud was dead well before the Northern Alliance took Kabul and the like.... But all said and done, a valuable, largely impartial work.....
July 2, 2015
A lot of books go into the rivalry of India and Pakistan right from the pre-independence era right up to the new millenium. However, few books (if any) provide a thorough comparative analysis of both countries post partition.
Dilip Hiro analyzes and pinpoints the very different natures of the Indian independence movement and the Pakistan movement. He thoroughly digs through the mindset of the leaders and followers of both movements that wanted different things from the outgoing British Raj. I have read more than my fair share of India-Pakistan books but this one takes the cake when it comes to comparative analysis.
Also, this book tries to explain the actions taken by one country and the counter reaction by the other. This at times is very interesting as these actions and counter reactions had more than local ramifications in South Asia. The happenings in the sub continent impacted the Cold War and ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, rise of the Taliban, the 9/11 attacks and the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
Bottome Line: A highly interesting book by an impartial author. Must Read for any one interested in South Asian history and politics.
Dilip Hiro analyzes and pinpoints the very different natures of the Indian independence movement and the Pakistan movement. He thoroughly digs through the mindset of the leaders and followers of both movements that wanted different things from the outgoing British Raj. I have read more than my fair share of India-Pakistan books but this one takes the cake when it comes to comparative analysis.
Also, this book tries to explain the actions taken by one country and the counter reaction by the other. This at times is very interesting as these actions and counter reactions had more than local ramifications in South Asia. The happenings in the sub continent impacted the Cold War and ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, rise of the Taliban, the 9/11 attacks and the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
Bottome Line: A highly interesting book by an impartial author. Must Read for any one interested in South Asian history and politics.
November 29, 2015
One of the best book which summaries events leading to India's partition and after that the rivalry between India and and disenchanted cousin Pakistan. India's partition will be remembered as the saddest event in Hindustan's known history. Till that time Hindustan was enslaved first by Islam forces and then Britain but it was one in its soul. The partition had broken the heart of the nation and humanity was forgotten by both Muslims and Hindus. The book captures all these emotions eloquently. And I think at the heart of the book is the concept of South Asian federation like EU where the south Asia will again be one because its culture is one.
Thanks to Dilip Hiro for writing such a wonderful book. I have lined up your other books on my priority list to read.
Thanks to Dilip Hiro for writing such a wonderful book. I have lined up your other books on my priority list to read.
August 28, 2015
I really liked this book - the first half more so than the second. I appreciated the author's clear explanation of the circumstances leading up to independence and the subsequent partition of the sub-continent. The format of the material, what seemed to me to be a fairly even-handed approach to the facts (the guy dissed Gandhi for goodness sake!) and the author's writing style made for an enjoyable read. I was less interested as the story approached the present day as I was more familiar with the events portrayed. Still, highly recommended for anyone who wants a solid introduction to these events masterfully told.
August 19, 2020
Surprisingly forgettable. Although very well written, it is mostly rehashing of well known facts.
Still, the book does a great job emphasizing Gandhi's "original sin" of appealing to Hinduism to struggle against British rule in a religiously and linguistically pluralistic civilization and nation that, at the time of the raj, included not only Hindus and Muslims but also Christians, Jains, sikhs, Jews, and large Buddhist majorities in parts of India, Burma and Sri Lanka. All those traditions in the subcontinent included elements of the spirit of nonviolence, and the contradiction between Gandhi's vision and his faith ironically has led to the current nuclear standoff.
Still, the book does a great job emphasizing Gandhi's "original sin" of appealing to Hinduism to struggle against British rule in a religiously and linguistically pluralistic civilization and nation that, at the time of the raj, included not only Hindus and Muslims but also Christians, Jains, sikhs, Jews, and large Buddhist majorities in parts of India, Burma and Sri Lanka. All those traditions in the subcontinent included elements of the spirit of nonviolence, and the contradiction between Gandhi's vision and his faith ironically has led to the current nuclear standoff.
August 6, 2015
Really great book, starts very promisingly and is pretty informative when it deals with British India and even till Indra Gandhi's time but starts fizzling out after that and feels more like chronicle of events than a researched book.
April 11, 2015
Grei og innsiktsfull oppsummering av det bilaterale forholdet, av og til vel detaljrikt
August 16, 2015
A definite read for anyone who wants to know what really happened to shape up the Indian subcontinent as it is today and not what we learnt in our history classes at School.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews