"I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do." - James Baldwin
Guruvayur Temple entry movement (1932-33):
Gandhi attempted to convince orthodox Hindus to open temple for Untouchables.
“He was even prepared to accept that the temple would be cleaned after Untouchables had worshiped there.” [1]
This statement reflects his course of contradictory actions towards removing caste discrimination. He campaigned fiercely for the equal access to temples for Untouchables and on the other side, he accepted the temple premises to be purified after their worship. This approach can be summarized as washing mud with mud. He accepted adjustment in an orthodox structure at the expense of social justice.
“ The callings of Brahmin – spiritual teacher – and a scavenger are equal, and their due performance carries equal merit before God.”[2]
His innocuous proposition of everyone being equal in the eyes of God and his other statement on supporting the structure of caste reinforced the religious sanctity behind the oppressive system.
To summarize , Mr Gandhi wasn’t a Mahatma (Noblest Soul), He was a Politician and a Lawyer and for sure not a social reformer like Dr Ambedkar. It is time; we should stop making people larger than life and break the myths surrounding famous personalities.
[1] Page 69, Analysing and Fighting Caste: Dr Ambedkar and Untouchability, C. Jaffrelot.
[2] Ambedkar-Gandhi Debate, Annihilation of Caste – Annotated Critical edition, Dr B R Ambedkar
1
One of the more insightful essays on Gandhi, still unsurpassed in its acute insight into the contradictions of "saintliness" is by George Orwell. Here is a link:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi
Also piercing in its look at Gandhi's obsession with control and difficulty in dealing with his sexuality and aggressive drives is the biography by Eric Erickson, "Gandhi's Truth". More recent, but also fascinating is Joseph Lilyveld's "Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India".
1
@Hari Prasad
"Eric Erickson, 'Gandhi's Truth' ... Joseph Lilyveld's 'Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India'."
Quoth Pseudo-Googlysius: Did you mean *Erik Erikson* and Joseph *Lelyveld*
1
A great deal about the subject tin question but very little on whether I should buy this biography; whether it is well written, authoritative or otherwise worthwhile.
A lot of information on Ghandi but not much about this book and it's style and readability. There is a wealth of books on Ghandi. Why read this one versus another.
Unlike Orwell's appreciation, mentioned by commentator Scott Lahti, this review is superficial. All but a few lines are negative, with no real answer to the initiating question regarding the abiding interest in M G's life and work. And the thought in the concluding lines is as old as the Book of Job.
1
This review suggests the book is about Gandhi's peccadilloes. I hope that's not true. If it is then it misses why the biography was worth writing or reading.
1
"to live with a saint on earth
Is a different story."
Two women meet and begin to talk about their husbands. One description outdoing the other. Finally, one of them declares
" My husband is an angel. " The other woman smiles, shakes her head, knowingly, and states" Mine, at times, is also not a mensch...a human being!" The map is not the territory which it graphically represents. Accurately or not. No word is, can ever be, what it was created to describe. Explain. Inform about. No word is the PERSON, wartless, or even warts and ALL!
Gandhi's stint in Natal and the Transvaal (part of present day South Africa) advocating "passive resistance" from the mid 1880s to the early 1900s. His main adversaries were the British High Commissioner Lord Alfred Milner and the President of the Transvaal Republic Paul Kruger. He left South Africa which came into being in 1910 and headed back home. What followed in Imperial India arose from that background.
Required reading: George Orwell, "Reflections on Gandhi"(1949).
http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi
3
Gandhi was a magnificent politician and a terrible human being. He was vain, anti-Semitic, racist (read his comments on people of sub-Saharan African descent), and horribly, terrifyingly, misogynistic. He was an emotionally abusive, controlling husband and an exploiter of young women. None of this undercuts his role as the founder of a nation or as a pioneer in non-violent political tactics. The man was a giant, but he was no great soul.
7
@Kaleberg
I second, emphatically, everything that Kaleberg wrote. I add that even as Guha describes the situation, Roy was correct about Gandhi's being a reactionary on caste, which to him had to be maintained. He wanted the highest castes to tolerate untouchables, even letting them enter the temples of the caste system. But the untouchables must not do ANYTHING to get or even request their rights. That plan obviously would not have worked.
4
The publicizing of flaws creates a cut in the life of a legend like a double-edged sword: it justifies on one hand to remove the person from the pedestal due to his becoming, via the criticism, less of a legend; and on the other hand, the flaws may be considered major strengths by some others, who will raise the legend on the pedestal even higher.
Take for instance Hitler. Most of Western humanity decries him for being a sadistic and blood=thirsty anti-Semite and a war generator; but to present-day neo-Nazis, he is more of a hero, with every new publication that they read against him.
This brings us to consider that a flaw is a relative human judgment, and we must not hide them or their opposites, the merits, whether a legend is a hero for us or a most hated evil incarnate. For it is ultimately the distant posterity that makes the call, and they must have all the facts at their fingertips. A clear and unbiassed vision we must bestow to our future generations, to our cultural heritage, to the historical perspective to stay fresh and alive.
3
Mahatma Gandhi was a great soul and a man of nobility and
grace, and of infinite generosity of vision.
He also was a weirdo, a control freak, obsessive about things he cared deeply about to the point of irrationality (such as his advocacy of non-violence) and a great politician.
Both can be true. He was human after all.
5
So it is true that Gandhi when young enjoyed sex. He has written about it. It is also true that he was a practitioner of Gita - the primordial text. (BTW, trying to understand Gandhi without knowing the import of Gita is like trying to write about Calcutta whilst viewing Bangla you tube videos in Chicago).
Gandhi’s experimentation on himself was about him pursuing truth through experimentation on his body and life. I haven’t read Guha but if he missed this, then he missed big time.
Also his design of the experiment with his niece comes not from a Weinstein type of manipulation but from courage based on the force of his morality - whose enormous power came from spirituality. His candor and openness about it all is evidence.
Very few men reach the power of divine in men. Gandhi came closest. 1000 page books can be chronicles of volume, but to really know Gandhi requires looking at not only his life’s events, but also what motivated him. That may very well be a philosopher’s - nay, a spiritual practitioner’s domain.
6
A tiny sliver of a long and eventful life of Gandhi deals with his experiment of sleeping with Manu. But it is us the common men - Guha, Tunzelmann and many others, who make it a big deal. That says a lot more about us than Gandhi!
6
Unlike Mandela, Gandhi refused to lead the newly independent republic. That is responsible for rise of Nehru as India's first PM and also partly responsible for the division of India. Yet, he was the behind the scene more powerful policy maker without any accountability ("super PM"). Congress party led by Nehru imposed a very westernized version of India and promoted that image abroad. It did not reflect what India was. On the contrary, BJP and Modi's India represent India more accurately.
It's the same picture we get in terms of corporate governance in India. Those opportunist and mostly corrupt Lala businessmen (mostly from the same states of Gandhi and Nehru) were systematically promoted by Indian govt and Congress party. These businessmen, major donors to Congress, were shielded from any accountability, even after many of them were known to collude (by illegally hoarding food and selling abroad) with local Congress and Muslim league leaders and bureaucracy that caused massive famine in Bengal, for which Congress still blame entirely on the Brits & Churchill.
After freedom, those states also got many policies in its favor, at the cost of many other and more productive states (e.g. West Bengal) in terms of education, business, and overall wealth creation ability. Departing English businessmen also almost forced to sell its business to them. Since then corruption & nepotism took its deep root in Indian social and political ethos; & growing since then.
4
I have read a number of biography of Mahatma Gandhi ,including the one by R C Guha. Reading the review of Guha's latest biography as published here, it seems apparent that this book adds nothing new than what has already been written about Mahatma who has been admired universally but ridiculed and disdained by Indians of the present generation.
Even Gandhi obsesssion with the ' Brahmacharya' or celibacy that Guha talks about has been narrated by Willam Shirrer who was deputed by the Chicago Tribune to report on Gandhi from India. Shirrer described with first hand knowledge that he was a witness of Gandhi's inexplicable practices with young women in search of his celibacy. So when Guha talks about it ,he narrâtes a mere 'talk' that cannot be taken seriously because Guha never had a chance to discuss this delicate issue with Mahatma.
Shirrer writes, " But against these human frailities there stood out the man of infinite goodness,a seeker all his life of Truth, which he equated with God,a pilgrim who believed that love was the greatest gift of man and that love and understanding and tolerance and compassion and non-violence,if they were only practiced,would liberate mankind from much of the burden,oppression and evil life".
Joseph Lelyveld ( 2011 ) biography " Great Soul" also touches gracefully Mahatma Gandhi life of love and romance.
Kathryn Tidrick ( 2006 )biography, " Gandhi- A Political and Spiritual Life" describes Mahatma in a light untouched by many biographers.
4
It would not be wrong to say that Gandhi & Nehru, two main pillars of post independent India and Indian democracy- as we see it today, must share at least some responsibility for destroying democracy and secularism in India as we see it today.
Both Gandhi & Nehru were born in very privileged families, grew up mostly isolated from rest of the Indian society, migrated to UK rather early, then both were imposed on the Congress party by their influential fathers and/or personal network. They did not rise through the ranks in the party. And Congress was the sole copy right holder of Indian freedom struggle & democracy. The destruction of party's internal democracy, mainly by Gandhi, made a lot of difference to the country & its democracy.
Gandhi also promoted the interpretation of secularism that would be same as religious appeasement to both Hindu & Muslim fundamentalists. He personally was a strong believer of "sanatan Hindu dharma"- not much different from what RSS-BJP believe. Indian failed to even understand what is secularism to start with. It ultimately gave rise to frustration to both Hindus and Muslims. That resulted in Babri demolition & rise of Hindu fundamentalism and, ultimately, Modi led BJP Govt.
Congress promoted a very westernized version of India. It did not reflect what India was. On the contrary, BJP and Modi's India represent India more accurately.
It's the corruption and promotion of cronyism also destroyed corporate governance in India since then.
6
Had Motilal and Jinnah been allowed to pursued their ambition of a United India much would be different
But the Father lost his ambitious son to Gandhi ,whose Gujrati ideology of Non Violence camouflaged its direction.
Had the All India Congress Not Ignored Jinnah in favour of Nehru,this divergence could have been avoided.
There was a subterranean feeling that Gandhi favoured the "Entitled Group"but never declared it,preferring the Mantras of Non Violence whilst violence against the "Unentitled Group' prevailed.
Such saintliness abound our world today.
Gandhi had flaws because he was a human. Most of the flaws ("experiments") that appear in Guha's are well known and recorded in an biography by Judith M. Brown, "Gandhi and Civil Disobedience: The Mahatma in Indian Politics." Flaws in Gandhi's character are papered over because Indians revere him and treat him like a deity.
Flaws notwithstanding, Gandhi was a man of history, who taught the world that with peaceful, nonviolent efforts almost any political goal is achievable. Other teachings of Gandhi are equally important. One among them is to reduce your needs and live a simple life. Another is to remember that "there is more to life than increasing its speed." Alas, the world today is far from it.
6
It would not be wrong that Gandhi and Nehru, two main pillars of post independent India and Indian democracy, as we see it today, must share some, or probably most, responsibility for destroying democracy and secularism in india even before it started.
Both Gandhi and Nehru were born in very privileged families, grew up mostly isolated from rest of the Indian society, did higher studies in UK and then both were imposed on the congress party by their powerful fathers and/or personal network. Surely they did not rise through the ranks from the lowest or lower or even low level in the party. And Congress party was the sole copy right holder of Indian freedom struggle and then even democracy. So the destruction of its internal democracy, after Gandhi came into Congress's picture, made a lot of difference to the country and its democracy.
Gandhi promoted the interpretation of secularism that would be same as religious appeasement to both Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists. That ultimately gave rise to frustration to both Hindus and Muslims. That resulted in Babri demolition and rise of Hindu fundamentalism and Modi led BJP Govt.
Nehru and Gandhi imposed a very westernized version of India and promoted That image abroad. It did not reflect what India was. On the contrary, BJP and Modi's India represent India more accurately.
1
Gandhi was also a great advocate of unity
in a large diverse country of India. Prime
Minister Modi and his government, while
celebrating 150th anniversary of Gandhi's
birth, can do well to stop dividing the
country and spreading hatred and bigotry
against religious, caste and liberal groups.
The ideological preacher,RSS, of Modi government hated Gandhi and one of their member assassinated him. What an irony that
the preacher of nonviolence died a violent
death.
6
In the end, we humans all have flaws. Gandhi is no exception. His message of peaceful non-violent protest is probably more important to learn and emulate. India is a better country with him being at its "helm" as a national leader. His main message is still relevant till this day. If any of us follow even a small iota of what Gandhi preached, it would make this world a better place.
31
I have read many biographies of Gandhi and almost always detected a "point of view" on the part of the author, especially if Indian. Maybe that's because Gandhi, in his words and deeds, managed to enrage almost all sects of Indian society at one time or another. After all, it was rabid Hindu nationalists who killed him.
The best "warts and all" depiction of Gandhi, IMO, was in a book that wasn't a biography at all but in Larry Collins' and Dominique LaPierre's masterful history "Freedom at Midnight" published in 1975. The two non-Indian journalists displayed true professional arm's length remove from Gandhi and the other players in India's dramatic struggle for independence and tragic rending.
I look forward to reading Guha's book when it is available at my local library.
9
There have been a number of reviews of this biography of Ghandi, prophet of non-violent action and effective founder of the Indian nation. Every one of them that I have seen has devoted great attention to his bizarre practice, at the end of his life, of "sleeping in a bed with his teenage grandniece".
Perhaps this preoccupation says little that is significant about Ghandi, but much about the obsession in our present culture with matters of sexual transgression, to the neglect of other issues of societal importance. It also illustrates our difficulty in comprehending that there can be both heroic and (to use the current jargon) "problematic" aspects to the same human being.
7
@ERP "Matters of sexual transgression" are hardly a new concern "in our present culture" and exploring them is hardly automatically a "neglect of other issues of societal importance."
7
Please make the effort to get the name right. He wasn’t ‘Ghandi’ as is most often mispronounced in America, it was Gandhi, with the h associated with the ‘d’, not the ‘g’.
11
@Sucheta well written, thoughtful and respectful comment. I particularly like the 'please.' It suits you well. But, where exactly do you correct the pronunciation of the name after your excellent spell check? THAT would be of great importance to your posting. How do you say, "Gandhi, with the h associated with the ‘d’, not the ‘g’," as opposed to the other way. Please pronounce it for us so we can say it properly at our dinner parties.
1
I'm probably oversimplifying this but my understanding is that Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu extremist (Godse) because Gandhi was viewed as too soft in dealing with India's Muslim community during the period leading up to independence.
It is also my understanding that the party that currently controls the Indian national government views Gandhi's assassin as a patriot. To put it mildly, that seems a shame.
17
No-holds-barred profiles of important historical personalities are tricky to publish in India. It’s safe to say that someone or is waiting to pounce on the writer - either by threatening violence or by frivolous lawsuits that can take ages to resolve.
4
@AndySingh
In India, what gets published and what gets censored depends on who holds power at that time. The author may win awards or get killed by the mob depending on the politics. With the right wing BJP in charge, India only pays lip service to Gandhi, they may not mind Mr. Guha's biography.
7
Absurd! What is tricky to publish in India is anything considered to be religiously blasphemous, which includes the gods of the Congress party; Gandhi and the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty. This violent overreaction used to be primarily the domain of Muslims (from Rangeela Rasool back in 1929 to The Satanic Verses ) and Christians (The Last Temptation of Christ/Sixth Holy Wound of Christ to The Da Vinci Code) and the Congress who dominated Indian governance post-independence until very recently. The active collusion by the government and left/liberal Indian elites with this intolerance taught Hindus, unfortunately, that tolerance is a sucker's game.
The BJP government, however, is nowhere as adept in censorship and, besides, are subject to intense scrutiny from the left-libs who are now "woke" since they are no longer in power.
It is, however, true that India today pays lip service to Gandhi because, outside of the Congress party who deified this flawed politician to the extent of a cult in order to legitimize the dynasty that followed, the majority of Indians today view him as needlessly prolonging the time to independence and for ceding the stage to Muslim collaboration and intransigence at a critical stage in negotiation with the colonizers, and for requiring Hindus to sacrifice themselves to Muslim violence much as he advised Jews in the face of Nazi genocide. Gandhi was huge about nonviolence and sacrifice; from people who were oppressed and not from their oppressors.
@SS I missed the violent reactions to The Last Temptation of Christ and the Da Vinci Code. Objections are not violence.
All great men and women are complex personalities. Gandhi was not an exception. What matters is his service, dedication and commitment to the cause of freedom achieved on his terms of non-violence. He also correctly decided that he should not accept power (position in the government) once India became independent demonstrating the highest level of commitment to the people.
26
@PM Dear NARENDRA MODI, I share this thoughts with you.. the commitment with the people is the way to bring culture in communication and protection to women and their own formulated wishes to develope their personalities.
Ghandi was never a super-star - and also on his way of life he have talken out words, who are related in the social context he was in the second of speech. So there is no need to criticize this.
To prevent loosing spiritual boundings it is much better to denie positions in government, but support in STRONG, because peaceful way!
I would be much calm in mind to be part as a citizen of INDIA! To learn developing me personality without hurtings my own inner-world and also wisdom of the man I show my deepest respect and grateful thanks for supporting and realisation of this!
"What matters" is *everything* a person does that has consequences for others. None of it can be so blithely dismissed as not mattering.
5
When we admire someone or something, we tend to ignore or deny the flaws. All we need to see is the person or the thing was right for the right time and right situation. Gandhi (just as Mandela was) was great one to lead the country to independence from oppressive and dehumanizing colonialism. Same time, he had wacky ideas on economy advocating preindustrial village economy.
12
I have not read the book yet. I am curious to read about Mr. Guha’s opinion on Gandhi’s relationship with his antagonist Jinnah, who was instrumental carving out the subcontinent (and creation of Pakistan) resulting in bloodshed and million lost lives.
6