Showing posts with label F. Champion Ward. Show all posts
Showing posts with label F. Champion Ward. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 5, 2011


I've been thinking a lot lately about my father, F. Champion Ward, who died four years ago at the age of 97. As of last December, he would have been one hundred years old, an age upon which my 98 year-old widowed mother is rapidly advancing. So I thought I would include in my blog this week the eulogy I wrote for his memorial service at Evergreen Woods, where my parents lived for many years. It was delivered before a gathering of his friends, and of his family, many of whom contributed to the recollection of the stories that follow. 

D A D
My brother and sister worry that if I run on too long we may hear the impatient jingling of our father’s car keys: a sound to which we became accustomed on family trips whenever we lingered at a restaurant. But my worries are rhetorical. Our father loved the English language and hated to hear it abused. “Time to lay down,” a nurse commanded him at his most feeble, a week or two before his death. “It’s lie down,” he replied. One of his pastimes was to ferret out the commonplace redundancies of everyday speech: “following after,” “first introduced,” “end result.”
A week before our father passed away, I read to him from a tribute my son Jake had written on Dad’s 85th birthday. He was so delighted by it that I decided to press on with a tribute I had written as well: all about how Abraham Lincoln had resonated with my brother and me because he bore several similarities to our father: empathy, serene intellectual self confidence, and a disarming self deprecating wit. I choked up a little as I finished, and ascribed the ensuing silence to Dad’s being equally moved.
“You know,” he said finally, raising his head from his pillow, “that’s full of an awful lot of miscellanea. You might think about tightening it up.”
All right, Pop. I’ll see what I can do.

 
Arriving in the New World around 1630, Andrew Warde took time out from founding Connecticut to beget Andrew, who begat Peter, who begat another Peter. And then that Peter begat Levi, who begat another Levi, who begat Ferdinand, who begat another Ferdinand, who begat Clarence who, with Helen Eshbaugh Ward’s assistance, begat our father, Frederick Champion.
With such a long family history in this country you might imagine that our guest rooms teemed with Ward uncles, aunts and cousins. But our branch was a twig on the family tree that the rest of the clan would have preferred to prune. Our great grandfather Ferdinand Ward was the black sheep of a minister’s family, a plausible sociopath who made a short-lived paper fortune with a pyramid scheme for which he was eventually transported to Sing Sing in 1885, leaving his wife and little boy Clarence to fend for themselves. His mother could not bear the scandal and died of an ulcer not long afterward, and when his god fearing paternal grandparents refused to take him in, Clarence was sent off to be raised by his mother’s brother.
Soon thereafter, with his insurance company under receivership, young Helen Eshbaugh’s father jumped off the Staten Island Ferry one evening, leaving his wife and children to fend for themselves. And so it was that one of F. Champion Ward’s grandfathers was a swindler, and the other a suicide. Yet with wit and irrepressible spirit, not to mention the benefit of educations at Princeton and Mount Holyoke, his parents each managed to emerge from their families’ wreckage and reinvent themselves as paragons of marital felicity and unassailable respectability.
As if determined to provide their children with everything that had gone begging in their own childhoods, they raised our father and his slightly older sister Helen in an atmosphere of such love, kindness, and security that their two children did not even know the meaning of the phrase “sibling rivalry.” Such was Dad’s devotion to his gifted and warm-hearted sister that he could never speak of her death in a plane crash in 1947 without fighting back sobs.
Nor could our mother speak of Aunt Helen without gratitude for her assistance in winning our father’s heart. Rachel Duira Baldinger saw in our father the effervescent antidote to the dreariness of her own upbringing in her father’s parsonages. But she would have to fight long and hard, for in addition to her ruthless rivals who contrived to lure him into matrimony by, say, memorizing his favorite sonnets, she also had to contend with Dad’s own cerebral detachment.
Our father ascribed his abstraction to observing how his father suffered by fretting over things beyond his control. But Helen has found evidence in our grandmother’s journal that as early as the age of three Dad was already a contemplative. "You are a great boy at reasoning things out,” Grandma wrote, “and quite logical in your conclusions, though of course you are led in strange channels many times. You asked how God stayed up in heaven, and then I heard you say to yourself, 'I s'pose he's hanged there.' On seeing the crescent moon the other night you demanded to know where the rest of the moon was. Already your mother is afraid of your questions!" And so, Helen points out, were his children, who hoped that by nodding sagely at his mention of Schopenhauer or Mozambique we might avoid revealing how little we knew.
Though he pored over Santayana, pondered Whitehead, revered Plato, woe betide anyone who tried to pin down his own philosophy. He was an empiricist, I suppose; and, if his impatience with his children’s “beefing,” as he called it, is any indication, something of a stoic. But I think he studied philosophy more as a mental exercise than a search for some all encompassing Meaning of Life: a way to sharpen the blade of his wits and doubts before going forth to battle the ignorant armies of certitude and preconception. In that most ideological of centuries, he rejected dogma and taught his children, by example, to favor the evidence of our eyes and ears over the findings of even the most exalted panels of experts.
Though Professor Clarence Ward of the Oberlin College Art Department was also a Congregational lay minister, religion never took with his son. F. Champion Ward put his faith in doubt. He encouraged us always to think twice about whatever it was we liked to think. Any theory made him wary, and he pronounced the word itself with withering disdain: describing, say, some glib ideologue he had encountered in his travels as “You know, one of those fellas with a thee-eery.” He never espoused beliefs, exactly. To him, beliefs were merely opinions that had moved, for their own protection, into a gated community.
He may have lacked religious faith, but God knows he had his scruples. He demanded straight shooting of all of us. Indeed he was almost ostentatiously honest, or so the rest of us thought as he agonized over our restaurant bills when we traveled overseas on the Ford Foundation’s dime, or refused to park his car in the drugstore parking lot when he visited the drycleaner next door. But what kept his scrupulousness from weighing too heavily on his children’s shoulders was the distinction he always made between what was moral and what was merely moralistic. For him honesty was a positive virtue; the closer you got to the truth, he seemed to promise us, the bluer the sky and the brighter the sun.
Dad was an athlete, a baseball fan, a gifted pool player, a raconteur. Nevertheless his professors mistook this scrawny, bespectacled young egghead for an acolyte, and urged him to live a life of abstinent scholarship. Dad might have made the same mistake, for there were times during their courtship when our mother counted herself lucky just to get his attention, let alone win his affection. She remembers pretending to share his disappointment over failing by a hair to obtain a Rhodes Scholarship, which, had it gone his way, would have meant a prolonged and possibly terminal separation. But such was her determination, and her beauty, and her equivalent integrity and intellect, that she prevailed, for which her three children and their descendants are inexpressibly grateful. In fact, our mother so purged our father of his incipient monkishness that Dad would remark to Geoff that family was all; everything else was “a sideshow.”
But what a sideshow. Assembling his curriculum vitae, we were staggered by all the great things our father had accomplished between his four-minute egg and “Hi, Dui, I’m home.” For his children, his occupation was something of a mystery. We knew from all our mother told us that without his labors the world would cease to rotate, but why, exactly, was not always clear. We knew it had something to do with higher education, but we had a hard time reconciling higher education with the lower education we were receiving at school. Nor could we make heads or tails of the mimeographed memos, memoranda, syllabi, ultimata and manifesti he brought home as college dean. All we could do was flip them over and draw on them. In the family archives I once came upon an urgent memo from Milton Singer, on the back of which my brother had sketched our father reading the Chicago Sun Times, and captioned it “A talkative evening with Dad.” Mom likes to say of my sister’s arrival during that same period of engulfing deanly duties that Helen “was born apologetically during a meeting of the Committee on Policy and Personnel.”
Neither of his sons inherited Dad’s early bird traits. But his daughter did. The two of them shared much the same metabolism, and it was her privilege to join him at breakfast while Geoff and I had to rely for the most part on less frequent late night sessions over bowls of ice cream. Dad never treated his youngest child and only daughter with condescension. Even when she was tiny, he seemed to hang on her every word, thereby bestowing upon this soul mate he had presciently named after his beloved late sister all the intellectual self confidence she would need to make her way in the world.

None of us shared our father’s love of sports, however. For that he would have to wait for his grandsons. Maybe we could not jibe the Olympian brilliance Mom ascribed to him with his enthusiasm for watching a lot of grown men run around with balls. But he was no sedentary fan. His love of sports extended beyond the couch to baseball diamonds, golf courses, ping pong tables, and most especially tennis courts.
I tried to rise to his tennis game. After he defeated me six-love, six-three, six-love, I spent eight weeks at summer camp toiling on its clay courts, making my way from next-to-last seed to the senior semi finals, for which I won a cup for most improved. Moved by my dedication and proud of my accomplishment, Dad eagerly led me out onto the court and beat me six-love, six-three, six-love.
Unless you count his will to prevail, and I don’t, sports didn’t necessarily bring out our father’s most admirable qualities. As Geoff reminded me, he would never throw a game, not even to a toddler. His humor seemed to recede in competition, and he was not above engaging in little psychological ploys like following up his best shots at tennis or pool or ping pong by exclaiming, in ostensible self disgust, “Oh, no. That’s not what I meant to do at all.” Well into his eighties, he could reduce grandsons and even tennis pros to tears of frustration and exhaustion with his nasty old man’s game, slicing the ball into a capricious, net-nicking whir.
He was no less formidable at pool, which he played up to about a month before his death. I had the misfortune of playing him in his last game of eight ball, by which time he could hardly stand, barely see, nor remember exactly which balls to sink. By now, playing my father in a game of anything had become a lose/lose situation, because if there is anything worse than losing to an old blind man, it’s beating an old blind man. I needn’t have worried about the latter, however, for as I contrived to sink the five ball into a corner pocket, I managed somehow to tip the eight-ball into a side pocket. Thus, as if by divine intervention, Dad won his very last game.
Our father did not take instruction well. A ferocious guardian of his own autonomy, he met assistance with stubborn resistance. It was not just as an old man that he refused the helping hand. He shook it off all his life. He second-guessed prescriptions and driving directions, misread phone books and train schedules, distrusted waiters, refused the services of bellboys and nurses, and never cracked an instruction manual if he could help it. He once said that his idea of hell was a guided tour.
He didn’t like to be driven anywhere, either. Geoff remembers that while we were living in New Delhi, Dad ordered a Vespa motor scooter so he could liberate himself from the services of a Ford Foundation driver. We all stood around in the backyard while Dad revved up the little scooter for the first time. As he lurched forward, we suggested that he not drive his new Vespa into the neighbor’s swing set, whereupon he jutted his chin, furrowed his brow, and drove his new Vespa into the neighbors’ swing set.
Refusing my offer of help with his hearing aid, he once told me that he’d rather make his own mistakes than subordinate himself to somebody else’s competence. That somebody else was most often my mother, of course, for whom watching our father try to operate anything more complicated than a soup spoon became an excruciating spectator sport. “But that’s not the way it goes, Champ,” she would eventually blurt from the stands as he endeavored to tighten a screw with a vigorous counterclockwise twist of a steak knife. “Dui,” he’d reply, “don’t you have something to do?” The only time I ever suspected that my parents might be going through a rough patch was the Christmas my mother gave him a chain saw.
It may sound strange to say about so deep a thinker and gifted an athlete as our father, but he had a fundamental problem with cause and effect. Maybe none of the philosophers he studied ever stooped to explain it, for throughout his life the practicalities remained as mysterious, capricious and precarious as God hanging from the heavens by a string.
There was the time he decided to defy the directions for gradually rolling out a new piece of linoleum for a closet floor and gluing it down a little at a time. Instead he decided he would turn it upside down, cover the entire underside with glue, then crawl under it and lift it up. As both ends rolled back not only onto themselves but our father, he blindly staggered into the closet and tried to flip the linoleum over and lay it down all at once. By the time he was done, the wall and our father were covered with glue, as was the top side of the linoleum itself, which set forever bubbled and askew. He once summoned me over to his car to complain that no matter how vigorously he worked the car radio’s on/off switch, it not only kept playing, but at the same volume, until I pointed out that what he was hearing was not the car radio but the transistor radio in his breast pocket.
My own favorite episode involved a trip he took to California years ago. Renting a powder-blue Ford in San Francisco, he drove Mom down to Cambria on the central coast to attend my in-laws' 50th wedding anniversary. After settling into their motel, he returned to the car to find that the key wouldn’t turn in the door lock. Indignant, he called the rental company, which sent an agent down from San Luis Obispo. An hour later, the agent arrived, sized up the situation, and pointed out that the key in question was to Dad’s own car back home; the rental car key worked perfectly. Tipping the man handsomely, our father drove Mom to the party that evening, then back to the motel, and the next morning decided he would wash the car for the scenic return drive to San Francisco. So he filled one of those cardboard ice buckets with water and a dollop of shampoo, and went to work on the car with a fistful of motel Kleenex. After scrubbing the exterior to a spotless shine, he took out his key to open the car and clean the interior when, once again, the key – the rental car key this time -- wouldn’t turn. “God damn it,” he told himself, “I was right.”
But as he was marching back to his motel room to give the rental agency a piece of his mind, a woman in a bathrobe and curlers emerged from the room next door. “Excuse me, sir,” she said, “but my husband and I just want to thank you so much for washing our car.”
Of course, we would not have known half these stories if he hadn’t told them on himself. I once published an essay about his misadventures with the physical world. Though he took it manfully, he once insisted that I had exaggerated his floundering for comic effect. At the time he said this, he was moving a couple of sprinklers around the yard, and after waiting for the spray from one of them to swing to one side, he rushed to the spigot to turn it off. Unfortunately, it was the spigot to the other hose, and after the wand of water arced back and swept over him, he stood there dripping wet and said, “Well, maybe you’re onto something, after all.”
One afternoon, after heatedly rejecting my wife’s assistance with some gadget, he finally set it down before him and remarked, with sly charm, “and tomorrow I’m going to take up brain surgery.” His self deprecating sense of humor derived from his ability to see things from the other guy’s point of view. A few months ago, Helen and I sat with Mom and Dad bemoaning the fact that no matter how many conditions you might lay down as your teenaged children head out the door with their pals, you really have no way of knowing what they’re actually going to do. I cited the case of a party we allowed our son to attend on condition his friend’s parents would be there, only to learn long afterward that the parents had been drunk. After his sister’s death and my brother’s polio, Dad had come to regard children as “hostages to fortune,” and I thought he might say something sage along those lines. But he just sat there in his bathrobe staring straight ahead and gaping. I remember thinking, Well, the Old Man didn’t hear me, or he didn’t get it: either way... But then, after a long pause, he finally piped up. “You know,” he said, “I’d drink too if I had a house full of teenagers.”
Dad’s empathy was deep-seated. I wondered if it derived in part from the eight years he spent as the pupil of an Oberlin tutor named Hand, a woman of dramatic physical impairments who staggered when she walked and drooled as she slurred and stammered her way through her lessons. But Helen has again found evidence that it was deeper seated still. "You are a thoughtful little man in many ways,” wrote his mother when Dad was only three. On Christmas day, 1914, his Grandmother Otis had come down with the grippe but nevertheless descended the stairs to lie on the couch and watch little Champ open his presents. “You were so kind,” his mother, “and took everything straight to her as soon as you opened it, and it was sweet to see you think of her and show her each gift."
Though his parents could be clannish, our father was not. He welcomed every newcomer warmly, and took equitable interest in all their sundry occupations. After Helen introduced my brother-in-law Allen to him, our father would call Helen to say how impressed he was by him, or call Allen himself just to catch up on all his projects. We cherished Dad’s affection all the more for the way he garnished it with his shrewd humor. Four years ago, he wrote to his Jewish son-in-law that I had just determined that sometime in the not-too-distant past my mother Rachel Duira Baldinger’s Swiss-German forebears had been Jews. “A call from Andy in Switzerland makes it likely that the Baldingers were not only Swiss but Jewish,” he wrote Allen. “So, you thought you'd married a shiksa? So did I. Rachel sends her love with mine.”
Finally there was the matter of our father’s humility. In the summer of 1968, Dad and I were having lunch in a diner where they were showing coverage of the recent assassination of Bobby Kennedy, whom our father greatly admired. A large, dyspeptic man seated a few stools down began loudly to declare that shooting RFK’s assassin would be too good for him. Suddenly my Dad turned on the man and told him that that was exactly the kind of thinking that had killed Martin Luther King and the Kennedy’s in the first place. Chastened, the man withdrew into sullen silence. As we returned to the car, I expressed my respect for what Dad had said. But he was already thinking twice about it. “The poor man obviously loved Robert Kennedy,” he said, shaking his head. “He didn’t need someone like me making him feel worse.”
Now there may have been a hint of false modesty in this, I suppose, or simple discomfort with my praise. But one of the costs of a faith in doubt is that things have a way of rebounding. Nothing is as simple as it seems, he taught us, because how things seem is a function of our own limitations and not of the nature of things themselves. Another consequence of raising your children in the church of doubt is that you wind up not with Indians but chiefs. Let one Ward propose an agenda and the rest of us will first praise its general concept but in the name of efficiency, economy, or sparing someone’s feelings, suggest various contradictory alterations, until all that is left of the original proposal are its cold and eviscerated remains. This was as true of Dad’s proposals as anyone else’s, and there were times when he tried to cut through his progeny’s entangling bright ideas by climbing into the car, turning the key in the ignition, and calling out, “Anybody wants to come with me better get in the car now.”
  It is no accident, however, that his daughter, who of all of us has walked most closely in our father’s footsteps, has spent her life arming herself with hard-won facts to battle the bigotries and moralistic fatuities on which this country has based its treatment of the dispossessed; nor that one underlying purpose of his two sons’ books has been to demonstrate that the past was at least as complex as the present and our ancestors as moral and intelligent and complicated as ourselves. But the most far reaching legacy of our father’s sweetness and his joyful devotion to his wife and children has been the steady, felicitous flowering of our limb of the Ward family tree.
Many of you probably heard the jingle of our father’s keys some time ago. So I’ll close with proof that there was nothing false about our father’s kindness, nor his humility. It comes in the form of a note we think he must have tucked into my mother’s desk just after he agreed to move down to the Health Center to relieve my mother of the burden of his care. But Mom didn’t come upon it until after his death a few weeks later.
Almost entirely blind, our father had taken to writing with a large-tipped magic marker. But by now he could barely make out even its broad strokes. So the note is in a wavering, wayward hand, with here and there a letter missing or a word crossed out. But this is what it says, and here is how his children would like to close:
“Dearest,” it said, “if something dire proves me mortal, I hope you’ll tell friends and family members how much I care for them, and how proud I’ve been to know them. Champ.”

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Hyde Park Bred

I watched the Obamas at the Press Club last week, and enjoyed the comedy lesson the President gave a blowsy Jay Leno, especially when Obama followed a gentle jab at Michael Steele with a sly and perfectly timed, "My brother." 
     But what struck me again was the deep but wry affection in which Michelle and Barack Obama hold each other. It all seems to me utterly charming and entirely recognizable. 
     I was raised where the Obamas lived before coming to Washington: in the Hyde Park section of Chicago, where my father was Dean of the College at the University of Chicago in the early 1950s. There is something in the cerebral atmosphere of my old neighborhood that seemed to nurture relationships like theirs. 
     My parents shared it, as did several of their married friends. It was passion enriched by intellect,  devotion garnished with humor, erudition with humility. 
     My father went on to work for the Ford Foundation in India and in Africa, and died three years ago, at the age of 96. But before his death, my mother read Obama's autobiography to him, and he would make her pause every now and then to ask why Americans didn't choose men of Obama's quality and complexity for their President. How he would have rejoiced in Obama's election, and taken pride in the way he has handled himself. 
     
When I was very small my mother would sometimes say, perhaps in part to comfort herself that the sacrifices she made on his behalf were worthwhile, that my father should have been president. 
     I sometimes wondered to myself what sort of president my father would have made. I used to invent scenarios in which my father would be appointed, say, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. Then some catastrophe -- an electrical accident at a White House pool party, or a shipment of toxic hair dye -- wiped out the rest of the line of presidential succession, leaving my father holding the bag. 
     I suppose my father would have made a better, or at least smarter and better spoken and more honorable Chief of State than Nixon, Johnson, Ford, or either Bush. But would he have been crippled by his erudition and fair-mindedness, his sometimes lofty rationality and instinctive trust in the other guy's good faith? And would the country have forgiven him his sense of humor? 
     Though I could never really imagine it, Obama comes close. The Presidency is a terrible job to wish on anybody. But it has been fascinating, for better or for worse, to watch one of our own go about his business. 

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Love Letters in the Sand

Before my grandmother died in 1976, she left instructions that my father burn all her correspondence with my grandfather. So when we found their love letters in an old trunk in the basement, my father duly consigned its contents to the flames.
     Both of my grandparents Ward had spent their childhoods haunted by scandal: my grandfather's father had embezzled millions of dollars as a financier on Wall Street: so many that the family is somewhat affronted that the sort of pyramid fraud Ferdinand Ward refined has been named after a piker like Ponzi. By rights, it should be known as a Ferd.
     Before he was sent to Sing Sing in 1885, my great grandfather had put large dents in several fortunes, and utterly ruined former President Ulysses S. Grant, whose son he had finagled into becoming his partner. It is to Ferdinand Ward that we owe Grant's military memoirs, which he wrote in an effort to dig himself out of debt.
    My grandmother was the daughter of Daniel Otis Eshbaugh, the President of New England Loan and Trust, who apparently committed his company to a disastrous investment. Temperamentally ill suited to the rough and tumble of turn-of-the-century commerce, he could not bring himself to face his Board of Directors and jumped to his death from the Staten Island Ferry.
     Our family has fled from commerce ever since. But my brother Geoff has long been at work on a book about Ferdinand and his father, an almost equally odious Presbyterian minister, and I have always been fascinated by the mysteries of my ancestry. Geoff is an historian and I an erstwhile one, and we generally deplore the instinct among families to jettison their ancestors' correspondence. Researching various books, each of us has followed the trail of a cache of 19th century correspondence, only to be told by the latest heir to some family's archives that it was destroyed or discarded.


My father-in-law was a pathologist, and, upon meeting my father for the first time, handed him his monograph about his research into coccidioidomicosis, a disease peculiar to California's Central Valley. My father, who was not a man of science, duly opened the monograph and read the following passage: "The practice by laboratories of pouring pus down drains is to be deplored." 
     My father was at a momentary loss for words. But my father-in-law's point was that this was a great waste of pus: of material others could put to use in their research. I guess Geoff and I feel the same way about the ancestral record, no matter how rancid it may be, and recall the disposal of our grandparents' correspondence with grief.
     Recently my mother has begun to go through her correspondence with my late father, who, like his mother, left orders that it all be destroyed. Reading it, however, has brought my father back to life for her, restoring him from the difficult and confused old man he was when he died, to the dapper, brilliant, loving young man she married.
     My belief is that we all have a right to destroy any of our inanimate possessions, and keep private whatever intimacies we deem unsuitable for children. But not necessarily from the grave. 
      My father's instinct was always to clam up, to not make any sort of fuss or display that anyone might construe as egocentricity. When his children volunteered to write something for his mother's memorial service, his first response was, "I don't want to turn this into some kind of Ward family dog-and-pony show." But in the end we prevailed, and he loved what we had to say about his mother. Though his objections were sincerely felt, it was not always clear that they were sincerely meant, for whenever we overruled him he seemed glad we did.
     I come from an unusually happy family. My grandparents not only loved each other but enjoyed each other's company, as did my parents, as do my siblings and my mother's grandchildren and their spouses. It's really quite a family, and owes a lot to the standard my father and mother set.
     It seems to me that some future generation might like to understand the source of such felicity, to learn from my parents' love letters that such happiness was not accidental, but took nurturing, respect, wit, persistence, fidelity, patience, and a lot of coaxing into the light. 
     So with all due respect to my father, I have urged my mother not to yield to his extravagant reticence but to grant my parents' descendants admission to their courtship.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Chanakyapuri








Ever since we Wards returned to the States in 1959, our old house in New Delhi has been the object of periodic family pilgrimages.  A perk of my father's appointment as the Ford Foundation's Educational Consultant to the Union Ministry of Education, it stood in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi's Diplomatic Enclave, on what were then the outskirts of the city. 


Set in a kind of compound with a horseshoe driveway of red quartz, an expanse of parched grass and dusty hedges, and a complex of servants' quarters in back, in its whitewashed stucco glory it looked something like the stacked upper decks of a small ocean liner, with duplexed semicircular verandahs on each end. Behind us stood a dairy, directly across the street lay a large empty lot frequented by snakes, enormous lizards,  and jackals, and a few hundred yards away lay a ribbon of empty boulevards that the Government of India had cleared and paved to make way for rows of prospective embassies.


I first returned to India as a photographer in 1968, and as the beneficiary of my father's rise in the Ford Foundation, I actually had the opportunity of living there again for a few weeks as sole sahib. The house was much as I remembered it, and no fresh refugee from art school ever landed on softer upholstery. Some of our family's old servants -- to our astonishment, eleven had greeted us when we arrived from the South Side of Chicago in 1954 -- were still around, and it had not changed nearly as much as I had. Living there again as a young bachelor evoked some curious sensations for me: nostalgia, certainly, but also a weird sense of abandonment, as if the family had somehow left me behind. Where was my mother when the cook came in to go over his accounts? Where was my father when my driver asked where I wanted to go? Why were my brother and sister's rooms empty? I felt like the young heir to an extinguished dynasty, and when it came time to make way for the next educational consultant, it was almost a relief.


Another ten years passed, and I returned to research a novel. The day after the night I landed, my first stop was the old house, where I hoped to photograph a papaya tree my sister and I had planted. I imagined that it must have achieved the stature of a sequoia. 


By now the Ford Foundation had handed the house over to the Government of India which, in turn, had bestowed it upon the Government of West Bengal to serve as a rest house. As the local caretaker graciously escorted me around, I heard for the first time the whispering of mortality that twenty years later hisses in my ears like tinnitis. The verandahs had been enclosed, the living room divvied up into bureaucratic warrens, and the covered terrace my mother had constructed had collapsed. And as for the papaya tree, all that remained was a rotted stump.


On each of my subsequent trips I vowed not to put myself through that ordeal again, but the four years I lived there had been the happiest of my childhood, and I always surrendered to its gravitational pull. On my next trip five years later I was allowed into the kitchen my mother had overseen with Switzer vigilance. Here she had lectured the servants on germ theory, and her beloved cook Amiya had worked from recipes from her own frayed copy of the Joy of Cooking


It was late morning when I stepped through the dining room doorway and into the kitchen's once pristine, white-tiled precincts, and interrupted perhaps fifty large rats in their scramble for crumbs from the morning's preparations. One ran over my foot as I staggered back through the doorway to the verandah, where, years before, our bearer had organized a vigil by servants and neighbors of every imaginable faith to pray for my recovery from encephylitis. That's it, I told myself. Never again.


These revisits began to sap my appetite for Delhi itself, whose population had quadrupled since my boyhood. My old haunts had been subsumed by the bustle of what had turned from a kind of vestigial memorial to British Rule to a major world metropolis choked with motorized traffic. The old republican zeal of the 1950s seemed to me to have succumbed to a corrosive cynicism, and the city's best minds seemed focussed primarily on the best way to make money.


If all this strikes you as the grousing of an old man for the old days, the unseemly and perhaps nostomaniacal whining of an overprivileged chota sahib for all the deferences that devolved upon us in post colonial India, you are not entirely mistaken. Of course the population would grow, and the city with it, and my house would not survive in all its pristine glory. It was not a museum to our brief residence in it, but had turned into something else entirely, as had Delhi, as had much of India. 


If my disillusionment extended beyond Delhi, it was only to North India, as I had never been south of Bombay. But this past February, I traveled around South India with my wife's cousin, the sculptor Robert Taplin, who'd been after me to lead him on a tour of Indian temple sculpture. Suddenly I found myself in an India I could discover on its own contemporaneous terms, and by the time I had circled back to spend a few days in Delhi, my affection for India had been so thoroughly restored that I decided to risk another tour of the house, this time with my brother Geoff.  


So off we drove from the house he was renting in Golf Links to our old neighborhood of Chanakyapuri, along streets so changed that we were practically through the gate before I knew where we were. Where we were turned out to be a construction site, for apparently the West Bengal government, having been forbidden by the municipal authority to tear the old house down, had decided simply to subsume the old place in an engulfing structure straight out of a nightmare: a great brick and mortar maw with stairways seemingly leading to nowhere. 


We stumped around the premises for a while, revisiting my old bedroom, and my parents', and Geoff's, and going up to the roof where we once set out a stuffed owl one afternoon and watched as dozens of crows and vultures and kites attacked it. The house next door, once the Japanese consulate, was still in pristine condition. But everything else had changed. The dairy was now an army encampment, and the house on the other side of ours, once the home of our father's boss at the Ford Foundation, was surrounded by walls festooned with barbed wire. Half the kitchen had been entirely and perhaps mercifully closed off, and the construction had overwhelmed what little had survived of the terrace. 




Geoff and I gloomed around the house like ghosts, and we were pretty desolate by the time we got back to his apartment. After a couple of stiff drinks, we promised ourselves we would never go back. But that besieged old place is like a kind of gauge that indisputably measures -- should we sometimes lose track -- the inexorable passage of time. Besides, though there are not yet any rats in our kitchens, the house is probably not doing much worse than Geoff and I. After all, no-one has seen fit to encase us in a protective shell. The Delhi Municipal Authority would have no objection to tearing us down. So I doubt it's a promise we will keep.  

An Empire Relinquished by F.Champion Ward



One consequence of getting older is that you begin to run  out of mentors. By the time I turned sixty, three of mine had passed away, one just as he was about to turn a hundred, but the other two prematurely, of cancer. One of these was Meg Greenfield, the effervescent editorial page director of the Washington Post who moved down the street from me on Bainbridge Island, Washington, and encouraged me to write for her newspaper. This I did for a year or so, and I seemed to gain some traction, if such can be measured by the number of prominent politicians who took umbrage at what I wrote about them. But after a while I began to look down the road and see what a prominent column might get me if everything worked out well, and that was a seat among the gargoyles of The McLaughlin Group. 

So I balked and began to invest all my time in writing history. Meg was disappointed that her promising young man had decided to break his promise, and I'm still not sure I did the right thing, but we remained good friends and she still invited me to attend the parties she threw for the movers and shakers who came from all over the country to ingratiate themselves with this erudite and peerless opinion-maker at her beachside home. 

In the fall of 1998, I sent her an opinion piece my nonagenarian father had written about the end of empire as he had experienced it as a foundation executive in the 1960s. She liked it very much, and was about to publish it, when they discovered that she had cancer that had spread from her lungs to various reaches of her diminutive frame, and she died the following April. 

My father died in 2007 with his article still languishing somewhere in Meg's file boxes, and no inquiries could restore it to the batting order. So I've decided to publish it here. Dad had published several pieces in the New York Times, boasting to his writer sons that "there was still some life in the old bull yet." But I think this was the last piece of this kind he wrote before blindness overtook him. 








AN EMPIRE RELINQUISHED
Glimpses of the Departing Raj in India and Africa
by
F. Champion Ward  


The recent stately and cordial departure of “the captains and the kings” from Britain's last major colony was a reminder to me of how skilled the British became, after the Second World War, at beating dignified and amicable retreats from their overseas possessions. During the mid-century decade in which I first lived in India and then regularly visited Africa, former British colonies occupied themselves primarily with preparing for such imperial recessions and their aftermaths.
            Early in 1954, my family and I sailed for India, where I was to serve as a Ford Foundation consultant to the Union Ministry of Education in New Delhi. I soon found that the warm welcome that I received as a nongovernmental American was not extended to my official countrymen. As our ship (one of the last P. & O. liners) neared Bombay, the Eisenhower administration had announced its fateful decision to sell arms to Pakistan in order, as a  leading American policy maker later explained, “to shore up the eastern end of CENTO.” That decision abruptly cooled the warmth engendered in the first years of Indian independence by our first ambassador, Chester Bowles. Thereafter the American line — “We, too, threw the British out” — ceased to work with Indians, if indeed it ever had.
            Another surprise for American arrivistes was the good standing enjoyed by the recently departed Raj. India's former rulers were respected rather than reviled by the new leaders of India whom they had so often jailed. This apparent anomaly was explained to me by an Indian intellectual shortly after I had arrived. “We have settled our accounts with the British,” he said, “and are now free to admire them.”
            Unsettling, too, was the polished speech of many Indian officials. "Geez,” said one American agricultural expert, “these guys speak better English than I do.” The president and the prime minister were “Oxbridge” graduates, and my Indian counterpart in the Ministry of Education, himself widely known in India as the first Indian Secretary of the Oxford Union, once told me that there were eighteen Oxonians among his colleagues: “enough,” he added, “for an annual dinner.”
            Indeed, some of our hosts gave off more than a whiff of hauteur toward Americans that had presumably been inculcated by their British dons. This attitude was revealed in a number of ways. A ministry colleague first informed me that “the Sikhs are very energetic and superficial,” and then, on a later occasion, called them “the Americans of India," leaving me to complete the unflattering syllogism.
            But perhaps my probationary status was made clearest by our bearer. He had once served Jim Corbett, the fabled tiger hunter. When word reached Delhi of Corbett's death in Kenya, I tried to console him. “Yes, Sahib,” he sadly replied. “There aren't any sahibs like that any more.”
           
I returned from India in the Fall of 1958 and for the next five years directed the Ford Foundation's first program of “development assistance” in Africa.
            In contrast to India, where British rule had already ended, many African states were still colonies when the Foundation’s program began. Nor did all of their various European masters regard the prospect of their colonies’ independence in the same way. Indeed, Salazar’s Portugal, in its ahistoric way, saw no reason to accept the new Africa at all.
            On my first visit to Leopoldville (now Kinshasa), my Belgian host conceded, with an air of reluctant discovery, that Belgian rule might last for no more than another fifty years. His estimate was off by forty-nine years. Soon after the Congo became independent, I was having tea on the lawn of a hotel overlooking Lake Victoria when I saw what the Congo's independence meant to at least one family of Belgian refugees. A Belgian woman sitting at the next table with her children and their African nanny rummaged through her handbag until she came upon her house key. She held it before her for a moment and then, with a bitter shrug, tossed it into the nearest bush.
            The French and British departures were less grudging. The French divorced and then remarried most of their former colonies through the single grand gesture of the pater familias of the French Community, Charles de Gaulle. The British disengaged through a sensible succession of planned devolutions and transfers of power extending over a number of years. (These serial departures by the British were sufficiently numerous and well spaced as to enable one enterprising British firm to specialize in the rental of bunting and other paraphernalia required for the proper celebration of the birth of each new state.)
            When I visited Tanganyika (now Tanzania) in 1960, it was a British-managed U.N. Trust territory. Julius Nyerere had already been designated as Tanganyika's first president. Against his populist instincts, he was living in the official residence on the edge of Dar-es Salaam, where, escorted by the American consul, I spent the evening with him.  After a number of brandies, someone mentioned the British-African constitutional talks then going on at Lancaster House in London in preparation for the independence of a number of East African states. The talks were moving slowly, but far from accusing the British of stalling and duplicity, Nyerere said, “One can't really blame the British. They keep drafting constitutions, bringing them to the meetings, and saying, ‘Why not try this one?’” The phrase, enhanced no doubt by the brandies, seemed to please him, and he repeated it several times. In addition to reflecting Nyerere's fair-mindedness, it was an early glimpse, lost on me at the time, of the rivalry and mutual wariness among the future leaders of East Africa on which the East African Federation would later founder.
            The realistic statesmanship displayed at this time by British officialdom in London was not always matched by British colonial officers still serving in Africa. “If it had not been for your Woodrow Wilson,” charged the British Permanent Secretary for Education in the then Eastern Region of Nigeria, “I'd still be ruling my natives in my district.” But judging by the sullen reception he was given by “his natives” when I accompanied him on a homecoming to his former district, the proximate cause of his loss of authority lay nearer at hand.
            Of course, it was galling for the run of colonial field officers to face the early end of their careers, despite the “golden handclasp” with which they were consoled as they left the service. The sight of uninformed Americans seeking roles in post-independence Africa only deepened their resentment. “How long have you been in Nigeria, Mr. Ward?” l was asked by one British wife. “Ten days? We've lived here for nineteen years.” The next day, as I toured government offices in Kaduna, I got a glimpse of the way of life which was now coming so reluctantly to an end. My hosts were on the phone to each other but not strictly on Her Majesty's business. They were putting together the afternoon's tennis doubles. “No, not Simpson,” I overheard one say. “I don't think his backhand is quite up to it.”
            Perhaps, as a general rule, it can be said that the smaller the imperial power, the meaner the spirit of its departure (although French Guinea, where the French were said to have taken even the light-bulbs with them after Guinea voted “Non!” to the French Community, was an obvious exception). Here I include, along with Portugal and Belgium, the Dutch in the East Indies. Perhaps it is simply a matter of the greater importance attached to their few colonies by the smaller European countries. One of the first strong leaders in Mozambique, Eduardo Mondlane, once told me that he had grown up believing that Portugal was infinitely large and rich. But once he got there and saw how small and poor Portugal really was, he said that he felt “much less resentful” of Portuguese rule.
            Although the imperial departure was often orderly and sometimes magnanimous, it didn’t necessarily follow that the colonies thus formally empowered were, in fact, ready to become successful nations. In the case of Zanzibar, the British were barely over the horizon before the Sultan fell from his unsteady throne. Here the contrast between Asia and Africa is striking and may prove fateful for Africa's future. On the whole, the new nations of Asia were co-extensive with old cultures, but in Africa, which had been wracked by the slave trade well before Europe colonized it, new nations and nationalism were themselves artifacts of colonialism. A case in point is Cameroon. Its very name derived from the Portuguese word for shrimp and its two principal components legacies of British and French rule. Indeed, during the Cameroon's pre-independence period, one nationalist party made a patriotic point of spelling the country's name with a "K" as the Germans had when the Kaiser ruled Kamerun.
            Geography, too, made for social indigestion within a number of African states. The combination of a savannah interior inhabited by austere and undereducated Muslims and penetrated less deeply by colonial rule, with coastal peoples — many of whom, as the British used to say, were either "Christians or bare-assed pagans” — proved as difficult in Africa as has the mixture of Bedouins and Palestinians within the single nation of Jordan.
            A number of countries in Africa — Ethiopia, for example — share with such non-African countries as Lebanon, Malaysia and the former Soviet Union the misfortune of being dominated by one ethnic linguistic or religious group which constitutes about half the population. It is as if every other American were a Texan or white or a Christian, or spoke Spanish. In most cases, the hegemony of the dominant group is maintained but the resentment it inspires in other groups chronically threatens national unity and social order. In Asia the breakup of Pakistan is in part explained as the resentment of the Bengalis of the East toward the hegemony of the West Pakistanis.
            The divisive effect of tribal loyalties and antipathies, often extending across national frontiers, is another and, by now, familiar obstacle to national cohesion in Africa. For a time, many Americans, ignorant of intra-African complexities, tended to see Africans as divided only by their colonial masters. With independence Americans expected them to speak, think, and act as one. I recall Thurgood Marshall's surprised dismay when, as an observer at the Lancaster House meetings on Kenyan self-rule, he asked a Kikuyu leader about opening-up the highlands to farmers of other tribes after independence. “Just let them try it,” came the grim reply.
            Sometimes, Americans who had come to know the pervasiveness of African tribalism would try to reduce it in small ways. A colleague in Nigeria started out bravely with one Ibo, one Yoruba, and one Hausa as his household staff in Lagos, but he finished with three Ibos after one member of the experimental trio took a knife to one of the others on the ground that, as he angrily explained, “That man is a stranger!”
            Not that tribalism is unique to Africa. Flemish and Francophonic heads were being broken in Brussels even as tribal conflicts broke out in the Belgian Congo. And the Congo, when I first visited it, reflected the linguistic, ethnic, and religious divisions of the home country. Louvanium University in Leopoldville was Catholic, and so the “Confessional” University in Elizabethville was Protestant; students in either university were entitled to be educated in either French or Flemish. The Belgians in Leopoldville told me that it had cost some fifty thousand dollars to educate the one student who had opted for Flemish. I have often wondered about that student's reflections when and if he got to Europe and tried to order lunch.
            Other barriers to successful development in black Africa, ranging from friable soil and unevenly distributed rainfall to widespread illiteracy, discouraged any illusions that early and smooth progress toward mature nationhood and economic prosperity could be expected in Africa's first decades of political independence.

Even these scattered and personal observations seem to me to support the conclusion that although all colonial empires began in evil, some have behaved better than others. Certainly, the first Vice-President of Indonesia thought so. He once told an Indian audience that his fellow Indonesians “had to use force to win our independence, as you would have had to do if you had been ruled by the Dutch. The Dutch would have hanged Gandhi long ago.”
            A comparison of the aftermaths of the British departures from India and Africa might suggest that Britain stayed too long in India and then left Africa too soon. But unless one regards the bloody partition of the subcontinent as the inevitable consequence of an imperial policy of Divide and Rule, it may be more instructive to point out that since 1947 India has repeatedly changed governments by means of free national elections, now has a huge and growing middle class, and feeds itself. (Other, less tangible gains, as a member once said of a proposal before the Indian parliament, “must await improvement in the national character.”)
            In the case of Africa, hindsight is more difficult. Events so often seem to have been inevitable, once they have happened. However, in the sixties, it did seem clear that the die had been cast. Most Africans (but not all) were not prepared to wait any longer for independence. Before the Gold Coast became Ghana, I heard Kwame Nkrumah, then Ghana's president-in-waiting, tell a New York audience, "They say we aren't ready for independence, but here we come, ready or not."

Can it be that the turnover of Hong Kong was the posthumous handiwork of Rudyard Kipling? Or is it only coincidence that Kipling's prescient “Recessional” was published in June, 1897, almost exactly a century ago? At the jubilant height of Victoria's Empire, Kipling's poem urged his fellow-countrymen to abjure the pomp and “far-flung battle-line” of empire in favor of “an humble and a contrite heart.”
            Although the Labour Party rightly receives the primary credit for Britain's successful disengagement from its overseas possessions, and although one does not quickly attribute humility and contrition to Margaret Thatcher, the Tory decision to enter into the Hong Kong agreement, however belated and reluctant it may have been, should be noted as one more example of that conservative practicality which has often helped to ensure the solidarity of Great Britain in uncertain times.
            Some future Gibbon, seeking to explain the decline and fall of the British Empire, may cite such causes as the struggle of indigenous independence movements, Britain’s post War economic and human exhaustion, and party politics at home. To these one hopes he or she will add the British people’s increasing discomfort with the contradictions between maintaining an empire and pursuing their own democratic aspirations. But whatever the “verdict of history,” the manner of Britain's leaving deserves respect for the practical wisdom and common decency that British policy makers and officers eventually brought to the task of dismantling the largest empire in history. Perhaps now, at long last, we too can be “free to admire them.”

F. Champion Ward is a former Vice President of the Ford Foundation.