Mountbatten series
Zerksis Umrigar
I usually access this BB only in a read-only mode. However, since all
the messages re. the Mountbatten TV series have been critical, I thought
that it may be interesting to hear a different viewpoint. Hence a friend
is forwarding this message for me.
This TV series has been described as a "Dallas with brown skins";
someone else said that Gandhi is portrayed as a buffoon. These are
subjective perceptions over which we may argue endlessly - I do not
perceive the series in that way. Once I accept the historical facts of
India's subjugation by an imperialist and racist colonial power, I do
not see why a portrayal of the accompanying attitudes should be
seen as a conspiracy to malign India.
What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the critics of
the TV series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where
Mountbatten and his wife almost single-handedly pacified an angry
demonstration by thousands of armed Pathans. The critic charged that
this scene was ridiculous - initially, I tended to agree with him.
However, I changed my mind when I found that the book "Freedom at
Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an identical portrayal
of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on
pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in Tendulkar's biography of
Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Hence, I have little doubt that this "ridiculous"
incident did indeed occur and was not conjured out of thin air to
magnify Mountbatten's character in the TV series.
The TV series is almost entirely consistent with the events as portrayed
in "Freedom at Midnight". Hence the accuracy of the series boils down to
the accuracy of the book. Tho' the book is written as an extremely
interesting and fast-paced novel, it appears to be thoroughly researched
with attributions given for most of the "facts" presented.
Unfortunately, one of the major sources for the book appears to have
been Mountbatten himself - this possibly could have resulted in a bias.
Collins and Lapierre interviewed Mountbatten extensively for their book
and have reprinted their interviews in two interesting volumes published
by Vikas. One good reason for their accepting Mountbatten's version of
facts is that he alone, of the principals involved in the pre -
independence negotiations (as far as I can determine), kept a precise
record of all his meetings. Tho' Mountbatten is rather conceited (he
himself admits that) and credits himself for being instrumental in many
things, his perception is probably not all that distorted.
In conclusion, I must say that I think that the Mountbatten series is
true to historical fact. It does concentrate on Mountbatten, but that is
not too surprising considering the title. I enjoy watching the series
and would recommend it to everyone.
- zerksis.
zer...@syr-cis-aos.cs-net.
T.S.Reddy
> This TV series has been described as a "Dallas with brown skins";
> someone else said that Gandhi is portrayed as a buffoon. These are
> subjective perceptions over which we may argue endlessly - I do not
> perceive the series in that way. Once I accept the historical facts of
> India's subjugation by an imperialist and racist colonial power, I do
> not see why a portrayal of the accompanying attitudes should be
> seen as a conspiracy to malign India.
From your reply, you are implying that the net users who critiqued the
series cannot swallow the fact that Indians were subjugated by the
British. Since, in the following paragraph, you cite two or three sources
for reaching the conclusion that Mountbatten single handedly subdued
Pathans then perhaps you will be convinced by the spate of TV series on
the "sensitive and caring British Raj" that they are nothing but a
nostalgic take off by the British on their glory days. And my conclusion
about Gandhi's portrayal still stands after five episodes - He's been
made to look like a fool.
> What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the critics of
> the TV series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where
> Mountbatten and his wife almost single-handedly pacified an angry
> demonstration by thousands of armed Pathans. The critic charged that
> this scene was ridiculous - initially, I tended to agree with him.
> However, I changed my mind when I found that the book "Freedom at
> Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an identical portrayal
> of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on
> pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in Tendulkar's biography of
> Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Hence, I have little doubt that this "ridiculous"
> incident did indeed occur and was not conjured out of thin air to
> magnify Mountbatten's character in the TV series.
To say that the entire Pathan crowd was taken in by the fact that Mount-
batten was wearing the Muslim color (green) is indeed ridiculous. Can
you imagine? Pathans who are supposed to be fierce warriors and who have
seen war quite a bit in their time cannot recognize a military uniform
when they see one!
> Collins and Lapierre interviewed Mountbatten extensively for their book
> and have reprinted their interviews in two interesting volumes published
> by Vikas. One good reason for their accepting Mountbatten's version of
> facts is that he alone, of the principals involved in the pre -
> independence negotiations (as far as I can determine), kept a precise
> record of all his meetings. Tho' Mountbatten is rather conceited (he
> himself admits that) and credits himself for being instrumental in many
> things, his perception is probably not all that distorted.
Now who is being subjective? Should we conclude from the confessions of
a pompous and self serving man and two authors whose books on history
are as racy as a Jackie Collins novel that theirs is the true interp-
retion of the tumultuous period that was the freedom struggle.
> In conclusion, I must say that I think that the Mountbatten series is
> true to historical fact. It does concentrate on Mountbatten, but that is
> not too surprising considering the title. I enjoy watching the series
> and would recommend it to everyone.
Probably as true as the TATA trucks that turned up during the Pathan in-
vasion of Kashmir (episode 5). I hope that in the future you will conti-
ue doing us all a favor and access the net in your favorite mode - read
only.
John Quarterman
by Barbara Tuchman. It has some interesting things to say about
Mountbatten and the general British propensity for presenting every
aspect of their history in a rosy glow. Neither Mountbatten nor
Churchill were particularly interested in winning Burma back from
the Japanese, for instance. There's nothing on the events just
before the independence of India, but the book might still be
worth checking out of a library by people interested in Mountbatten.
--
John Quarterman, UUCP: {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq
ARPA Internet and CSNET: j...@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, j...@sally.UTEXAS.EDU
Mark Garrett
> What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the critics of
> the TV series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where
> Mountbatten and his wife almost single-handedly pacified an angry
> demonstration by thousands of armed Pathans. The critic charged that
> this scene was ridiculous - initially, I tended to agree with him.
> However, I changed my mind when I found that the book "Freedom at
> Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an identical portrayal
> of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on
> pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in Tendulkar's biography of
> - zerksis.
I might be that critic. Perhaps unfortunately, my impression of that
scene was not derived from previous knowledge of what actually happened.
Indeed, it would be ridiculous for the writers to make such an event
up, if something like it didn't really happen. What I object to is
the fact that the writing (and maybe the acting) was so bad that the
viewer could not tell *WHY* the crowd settled down. He didn't do
anything but wave at them! If Mountbatten was a great man, they
certainly didn't capture that greatness. And I know Gandhi was a
great man (from reading his autobiography) and they certainly didn't
capture his greatness either!
I watched the last episode since posting my original tirade on the
series. Does anyone know what was going on when Mountbatten and
Jinnah were in that car; they knew someone was planning to bomb it;
you saw people in the crowd with grenades; and then the parade ended
and Jinnah claimed to have saved Mountbatten's life. I didn't have
the slightest idea what was happening.
-Mark Garrett
j.mukerji
> vasion of Kashmir (episode 5). I hope that in the future you will conti-
> ue doing us all a favor and access the net in your favorite mode - read
> only.
I think that the last sentence in the above is uncalled for. The net is
there for the airing of opinions, often violently disagreeing ones. But,
opinions that essentially state that someone else should not express his
opinions on the net, go contrary to the purpose of the net. Therefore
I think one should refrain from expressing them, unless of course they are
associated with a "smiley" :-)! In any case, to claim that he will do "all of
us a favor" by not posting any articles is a bit juvenile, don't you think?
Jishnu Mukerji
S. Sridhar
> > What we cannot argue about are historical facts. One of the critics of
> > the TV series referred to an incident in the second(?) espisode, where
> > Mountbatten and his wife almost single-handedly pacified an angry
> > demonstration by thousands of armed Pathans. The critic charged that
> > this scene was ridiculous - initially, I tended to agree with him.
> > However, I changed my mind when I found that the book "Freedom at
> > Midnight" by Collins and Lapierre (pg. 130) had an identical portrayal
> > of this incident. What is more, there is a photograph of the incident on
> > pg. 329. I also saw a similar description in Tendulkar's biography of
> > Abdul Ghaffar Khan...
> > - zerksis.
>
could utter some Pushtu (one of the Pathan tongues) and this in addition
to the Islamic color may've mollified the charged crowd. I don't
remember if I read this in "Freedom at Midnight" or elsewhere.
--Sridhar
--
S. Sridhar sridhar%s...@tektronix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
muk...@epistemi.uucp
>> I hope that in the future you will conti-
>> only.
>
>I think that the last sentence in the above is uncalled for.
I agree. We had a similar views expressed during the brief period
Joachim took to air to abuse Islam and its followers. At the time
it was widely agreed that the net should not debar anyone from expressing
thier views. Since I have had no postings to the contrary I assume that
this is still the policy.
While posting I would like to take the opportunity to thanks all those
guys who compile and post the News bulletin. It's nice to know what
REALLY is happening back in India.
Finally I would like to know why India has such aweful politicians.
Do the people really deserve them? Or are they the dregs left behind by
the huge brain drain of Indian intellectuals? Maybe we should have a chat
about this.
Mukesh Patel
Raj Bhatnagar
>Finally I would like to know why India has such aweful politicians.
>Do the people really deserve them? Or are they the dregs left behind by
>the huge brain drain of Indian intellectuals? Maybe we should have a chat
>about this.
>
If by aweful you mean corrupt, then ... Yes, people really deserve them.
Don't we have plenty of corrupt administrators, corrupt civil servants,
corrupt businessmen and traders...! Corruption seems to have become
acceptable aspect in one's character and this gets reflected in the
set of politicians also. Afterall, they are selected by society and
can not have traits unacceptable to the society !
No, they are not the dregs left behind by the huge brain drain. I can
interpret such a thought only as an exercise in self-appeasement by the
"Drained Brain".
There is no shortage of 'brain' in India. It takes a lot of 'brain' to
survive in Indian politics also! What we lack is a strong national
character. The causes and fixes for this deficiency is another question.
Raj Bhatnagar.
ag...@ccvaxa.uucp
>/* Written 11:04 am Mar 6, 1986 by muk...@epistemi.UUCP */
>Finally I would like to know why India has such aweful politicians.
>Do the people really deserve them? Or are they the dregs left behind by
>the huge brain drain of Indian intellectuals? Maybe we should have a chat
>about this.
Hope you don't mind a near Brit butting in on a frivolous note.
I think mukesh meant "awful", but I ask you whether "aweful" does
not apply to the way much of the Indian public views politicians.
I always have in my mind a news clip showing Mrs. Gandhi being
showered in flower petals and being given gifts in some country
village - in the middle of martial law. Almost the way people treat
a king - or a god-king.
Reaction?
Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.
USEnet: ...!ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms
S.Rajeev
> Hope you don't mind a near Brit butting in on a frivolous note.
A "near Brit"? Now is that almost Brit? Or is a near Brit better'n a
far Brit? Or did you really mean "mere Brit"?
> I always have in my mind a news clip showing Mrs. Gandhi being
> showered in flower petals and being given gifts in some country
> village - in the middle of martial law. Almost the way people treat
> a king - or a god-king.
>
> Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.
Canny folks, these villagers. Probably got a road built or a canal
dug in exchange for the histrionics. Not a bad deal. As for the "awe"
part, you ain't seen nothing till you've seen a film star being
mobbed: you know, much like rock stars here.
Sri Rajeev.
ag...@ccvaxa.uucp
This "near" Brit is a British citizen, of British parents, who speaks with
as much of a British accent as a Canadian one, who plays soccer rather than
the North American sports, yet who was born and has lived most of his life
in Canada, is also a Canadian citizen, and doesn't really like England
anyway.
I was wrong in saying "martial law" - how does state of emergency sound?
"Aweful" - unlike rock stars or other vedettes, Mrs. Gandhi had real power.
My question is this: is it not dangerous combining the ceremonial functions
of state with the executive; the executive has real power, the ceremonial
head-of-state "awe"some power, when one person exercises both forms of
power it may be difficult for constitutional mechanisms to control.
Yes, this happens in the USA too - look how close Nixon came to getting away
with Watergate.
S.Rajeev
> My question is this: is it not dangerous combining the ceremonial functions
> of state with the executive; the executive has real power, the ceremonial
> head-of-state "awe"some power, when one person exercises both forms of
> power it may be difficult for constitutional mechanisms to control.
I'm not really convinced this is a big problem, but even granted that it
is, please note that the Indian constitution provides for this
eventuality in the following manner: there is a Prime Minister with
"real power" and a President who is the head of state, but who really has
no power, "awesome" or otherwise.
However, you have really changed the subject: what you said initially
was that Mrs. Gandhi was treated like a god-king by villagers who gave
her flowers and gifts. What irritated me was the ethnocentricism in that
comment. Could you please explain to me how much more sensible than
showering a politician with flowers the trappings of US democracy, for
example, $500-a-plate dinners, are? (It'd be so much less ridiculous to
just donate the $500 and be done with it!) We all go through our silly
little rituals...
(By the way, as a Canadian you are no stranger to being at the receiving
end of ethnocentrism: I find it amusing and quaint that Canadians always
say "North American", thereby including themselves, whereas the brash Yank
would simply say "American", in referring to, say, sports!)