I liked certain things, and I disliked other things about it...It's falsification of history. I was rather puzzled by the simplifications. For instance, it would have made a better film if the genuine historical relationship between Gandhi and Nehru was allowed to be portrayed. Their relationship was first of all a relationship between equals. Secondly, it was an explosive relationship. They argued about the future of India. And, in fact, that argument is central to independence-homespun vs steel mills. And by and large India chose Nehru. It may have emotionally chosen Gandhi, but practically it chose Nehru. That dispute would have added a great deal of drama to the film. Instead, Nehru is being made into a disciple of Gandhi-sits at Gandhi's feet and says "Haan bapuji, nahi bapuji," cries when Gandhi goes on a hunger strike. I think that made the film rather silly. And I did find it very odd that Subhash Chandra Bose was left out. I know they couldn't put in everybody, which is their defence; but Bose seems like a huge omission. All right, they didn't put in Tagore or Sarojini Naidu. (ST: They did have her.) SR: Really? Of course, the Dandi March. But not having Bose is a great distortion of the reality of those times. There are also peculiar things-like the killings in Calcutta have been shown after the partition-whereas a schoolboy could have told you that it happened in 1946. Deification of public figures is an Indian disease. We've done it to all sorts of people all the time. Why should Attenborough do it? Gandhi was a sharp, crafty, streetfighting Gujarati lawyer who was a brilliant politician. He didn't win because he was a saint. In that generation they weren't saints. They were brilliant politicians. Tough men. And to present them as these kinds of reborn Christs may conform to a desire in the west for re-makes or new versions of Bible epics, but it seems to me an insufficient film about Gandhi. And the sad thing is that it makes sure that there won't be a good film now about Gandhi.