--Uma Iyengar WAVELL: THE VICEROY'S JOURNAL Edited by Paul Brass Oxford India Paperbacks, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1977, 528, 45.00 VOLUME II NUMBER 2 March-April 1977 ‘The three and a half years of Lord Wavell’s Viceroyalty
from October 1943 to March 1947 was probably the most difficult and momentous
period of office that any Viceroy has had to face. The crucial significance of
these years and the great services that Wavell rendered during them to India
and Britain, though recognized to some extent at the time have not since then
received the appreciation that is their due…. Lord Wavell's Journal, along with
some of his notes and memoranda, should help to correct a number of
misconceptions and will lead, perhaps, to a better appraisal of his achievements
as Viceroy and his qualities as a man,’ says Sir Penderel Moon in his
Introduction.
Most diaries and memoirs, in
spite of professions to the contrary tend to be written consciously or
unconsciously with an eye on the reader and the public image created thereby. Wavell's
Journal is however an exception. He says, ‘I have always been honest in the
entries and have tried to represent accurately the events, discussions and
impressions of the time.’ From these honest entries the picture that emerges is
one of a dithering politician full of prejudices, accused of attempting to
erect matchwood dams against the Indian political torrent. ‘Indians’, he
records, ‘are a docile people and a comparatively small amount of force
ruthlessly used might be sufficient.’
‘He took over the Viceroyalty visualizing
himself to be the chief instrument in opening a new chapter of Indian history. ‘I
have found H.M.G's attitude to India negligent, hostile and contemptuous ...
If India is not to be ruled by force it must be ruled by the heart rather than
the head. Our move must be sincere and friendly ...’
Yet he himself began with a stiff anti-Congress
attitude with definite partisan views in favour of the Muslim League. The least
damaging thing that can be said of him is that he was a conscientious and
dutiful man who neither understood politics nor was at home with politicians.
To him Gandhi was ‘an unscrupulous old hypocrite, exceedingly shrewd,
obstinate, domineering (and) double-tongued’, ‘more malevolent than benevolent.’
Jawaharlal Nehru whom he liked in spite of himself, he termed as sincere,
well-educated and personally courageous, but lacking balance and political
courage. ‘Rajagopalachari.’ he said, ‘certainly does not give the impression of
a forcible character—very few Indians do—’; ... Table of Contents >> |