Book Review: Indian Summer

A little gossipy but ultimately fairly engaging and entertaining, this book provides a historical overview of the Indian Independence movement and Partition, and more specifically, of the key players in this history: the inept Lord Mountbatten (Viceroy of India), his wife Edwina, Jawaharlal Nehra, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and Mahatma Gandhi. The scope of the book is pretty narrow: the author limits herself to mostly describing the dynamics and friendships between these characters: notably, the friendship between Edward (Dickie) Mountbatten and Jawaharlal Nehru, the rumored love affair between Edwina and Nehru, and the soured relationship between Nehru and Jinnah.

This book purports to be unbiased, and has been heralded as such by many readers, but I found it to be just as biased as any other historical account. I thought it was too defensive of Lord Mountbatten who had essentially proven himself to be an ineffectual leader, though he may have been a kind-hearted, well-meaning person. It is impossible to judge the personality of historical characters. In the end, does it really matter if Mountbatten was generous or well-intentioned? All that really matters, and all we can judge him by today, are his actions. And his actions show that he was naive and let his personal relationships guide his actions, and certainly did not help Partition, even if he may not have made it worse.

Alex Von Tunzelmann is also full of praise for Nehru, who is really shown to do no wrong in the book, except maybe when it came to the issue of Kashmir. Nehru was no doubt a great and visionary leader, but just like everyone during that difficult time, he made some hot-headed decisions and ended up making some mistakes. The author's willingness to gloss over these made her a less credible historian in my eyes.

She also seems to be unnecessarily critical of Mahatma Gandhi. Don't get me wrong, I think criticisms of Gandhi are important, because the world looks for heroes, and the West has especially turned him into a symbol of good and a bastion of morality, when really, just like everyone else, he had shades of grey. I think Von Tunzelmann pointed out important contradictions in Gandhi's personality, and in his rigid morality that ultimately harmed those around him. Of course, just like most people, he had flaws, and he influenced the independence movement and the division of India like no man could. But the author does not do an adequate job of describing the mass following he had accumulated, of his power over people. I think ultimately what made Gandhi remarkable as a leader was that he had no desire for power, no desire to be a politician, even though power was at his feet the whole time. He could have been prime minister if he wanted but he chose not to be. This in itself makes him worth appreciating as a national hero.

In sum, this book reads like People Magazine, 1947 Edition, kind of gossipy and sensationalist. But I liked reading it, and learned some new things, like the friendship (affair?) between Jawaharlal Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten, which I took mostly with a grain of salt, though it was interesting to read about a different version of history than the one I'd grown up with. In the end, I think that was where Indian Summer provided me with the most value, providing an alternative (but no less unbiased) version of the history I've read so much about.

I would only recommend it to someone with prior knowledge of the events of 1947, however, as it gets into the nitty-gritty details of the situation, which wouldn't be interesting to everyone.

Falling Maternal Mortality Rates: The Good and the Bad

The Lancet recently released the results of a survey, commissioned by the Gates Foundation, aiming to study the progression of maternal mortality rates from 1980-2008. Maternal mortality is defined as the death of women during childbirth, pregnancy, or in the 42 days after delivery. The New York Times reported on the findings as well.

The study provides some encouraging news: analysis of all available data for maternal mortality from 1980 to 2008 for 181 countries has shown a substantial decline in maternal deaths.

The study cited a number of reasons for the improvement: lower pregnancy rates in some countries; higher income, which improves nutrition and access to health care; more education for women; and the increasing availability of “skilled attendants” — people with some medical training — to help women give birth. Improvements in large countries like India and China helped to drive down the overall death rates.

This is great news. The reduction of maternal mortality is one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. There had been widespread fears that progress was slow, but it seems that there has been some movement over the past few decades:

For the first time in decades, researchers are reporting a significant drop worldwide in the number of women dying each year from pregnancy and childbirth, to about 342,900 in 2008 from 526,300 in 1980

However, there are some issues that should be noted before celebrating the decrease in maternal mortality.

1) A few countries really stand out by having exorbitant MMRs (Maternal Mortality Rates)

More than 50% of all maternal deaths were in only six countries in 2008 (India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo)

Yikes. But: India has made steady progress: there were 408 to 1,080 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1980, and by 2008, there were 154 to 395, the study found.

2) Sub-saharan Africa has the highest MMRs in the country; this is explained by the devastation caused by HIV/AIDS in the region. In fact, MMRs have been rising in much of eastern and southern Africa. The study notes that in the absence of HIV, there would have been 60,000 fewer maternal deaths worldwide in 2008. This finding emphasizes the need for continued research and advocacy against AIDS.

3) There is a group of people that isn't thrilled with this news: some women's health activists have spoken out against the publication of the survey, arguing that it would detract from the urgency of the cause, and slow funding and global attention for this issue. With so many issues in international development, it is understandable that funding may dry up for an issue that is perceived to have been "fixed". But it is crucial to remember that this good news has come as a direct result of aid movements and government policies, and that more funding is needed to preserve and even improve upon these gains.