The film Gandhi takes a stern view of colonialism, and Sir Richard responded aggrievedly to some English columnists who had criticised him for being anti-British.

“I do not see any shame in us saying in the 1980s, yes, that is what we did in India,” he said. “I wanted to condemn the concept of colonialism. It happens that we, the British, had no alternative in dealing with the objections to colonial rule, of the people who were oppressed. I did not make the film as a piece of objective reporting.”

He does see the incongruity of an Englishman making a film about the man who helped achieve independence in 1947 from the British. Why did not India make the film?

“No Indian ever attempted to make the movie,” he said. “They make 700 movies a year. They have the largest industry in the world. They make the worst films in the world. Movies which carry any logical plot or character development are not made in India.”

He said it needed an outsider to cut through the undergrowth of State allegiances, of religious prejudices, of caste, moral and religious inhibitions to make such a film.

He was fascinated by the idea of the Australian bushranger Ben Hall for some time, and his current fascination is the American revolutionary patriot Tom Paine. But Sir Richard has no firm plans after careering round the world with Gandhi.

Loading

“Theoretically. I am going to have a rest,” he said. “Don’t smirk, Hawkins.”

And he would like Gandhi to win an Oscar or two in America, for the sake of the British film industry.