Forgotten History Debate: The TRUTH about Mahatma Gandhi...

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster

041214_Gandhi_600.jpg


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/vNzvXBzdAw0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>​

The Gandhi None of Us Knew

It has been not quite a century since Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was assassinated in January 1948 at the age of 78 in New Delhi, India. The bevy of hagiographies written about him is now being replaced with truth-telling biographies about the Gandhi nobody knew.

The most recent one is titled Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India by Joseph Lelyveld.

While one would think, at first glance, reading Lelyveld's shocking revelations about Gandhi, it's all tabloid fodder for a rapacious audience that diets on sordid tales, Lelyveld, former editor of the New York Times, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, pays meticulous attention to details.

Between 1908 and 1910, Gandhi left his wife to be with wealthy German-Jewish bodybuilder and architect Hermann Kallenbach. But the only evidence Lelyveld gives the reader, suggesting the bonding of the two men was at least homoerotic if not homosexual, is a salacious one-liner where Gandhi allegedly told Kallenback, "How completely you have taken possession of my body. This is slavery with a vengeance." According to Gandhi's own wife, Gandhi engaged in heterosexual intercourse, but it repulsed him so much it actually made him physically ill, and he vowed never to attempt it again.

While Gandhi may have been repulsed by heterosexuality he seems to be repulsed, at least publicly, by homosexuality, too. For example, in the 1930s, both Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru attempted to erase all traces of the Indian homoerotic tradition from Indian temples as a result of their systematic campaigns of "sexual cleansing."

The revelation of Gandhi's alleged bisexuality in Lelyveld's book is the only positive news in a long laundry list of sexual peccadilloes, bizarre personal habits -- like his love for enemas, done twice a day -- mind-bending cult practices like "spiritual marriages" with women where sex is purportedly absent, and his unbelievable blatant racist attitudes towards black South Africans.

How did the public get so hoodwinked by the divinity of Gandhi?

The deification of Gandhi intentionally eclipsed Gandhi the real man. Elevated to a 20th century messiah by both European and American Christian clerics and missionaries, who wanted to covert Hindus to Christianity, and elevated to a 20th century Hindu god by Indians, Gandhi's real life was overlooked and supplanted with a series religious myth. For example, John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York, praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like "Gandhi: The Modern Christ" and "Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ." Krishnalal Shridharni announced that Gandhi was "The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama."

Known the world over as Mahatma Gandhi, Sanskrit for "Great Soul," and as Bapu, Gujarati for "Father," Gandhi comes to my consciousness from the father of this country's Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, who was also assassinated: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And I loved Gandhi because King did.

Gandhi's pacifist philosophy of "satyagraha," a Sanskrit term he coined to mean the resistance to oppression through mass civil disobedience firmly rooted in "ahimsa" or absolute non-violence that transforms foes into friends, won India its independence from British colonialism in 1947.

Gandhi's liberation paradigm profoundly informed the socio-political theology of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, giving rise to a black non-violent movement consisting of sit-ins, freedom rides, and marches that shamefully exposed and evidently toppled the South's Jim Crow ordinances.

As with King, Gandhi, too, became an iconic image in The Movement. However, if King and others knew of Gandhi's racist views of black South Africans, and knew why Gandhi never met with African American civil rights leaders, who were hungry to not only meet the man but to know more about his philosophy of "satyagraha," Gandhi wouldn't have been so highly profiled in his public sermons.

But Gandhi was an unabashedly diehard supporter of India's Hindu caste system, and would never mix with a lowly group or caste, and Lelyveld in Great Soul lays out Gandhi's unedited views:

"We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs [offensive term equivalent to the n-word]," Gandhi complained during one of his campaigns for the rights of Indians settled there. "We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized -- the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."

In an open letter to the legislature of South Africa's Natal province, Gandhi wrote of how "the Indian is being dragged down to the position of the raw ******" -- someone, he later stated, "whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."

On white Afrikaners and Indians, he wrote: "We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they do."

In a recent speech at a Virginia high school, President Obama stated that Gandhi was a "real hero of mine," describing Gandhi as someone with whom he would like to dine. "He is somebody whom I find a lot of inspiration in. He inspired Dr. King."

I'm sorry Mr. President, that wouldn't happen, because Lelyveld's Gandhi reveals a great soul the public didn't know.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EgVFycy2284" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aJsrAtbA0hs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/O25WWySyRO0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>​
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
'Sexual weirdo', 'closet racist': Look who's opposing a Gandhi statue in UK's Parl Square

A "sexual weirdo"? A racist"? And a "reactionary proponent of the caste system" ?

This is not quite how one thinks of Mahatma Gandhi, the saintly figure of our popular imagination who inspired men such as Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, and is revered in India as the Father of the Nation.

Yet, it is precisely on these grounds –Gandhi’s alleged sexual “deviance” and “racism” --that the British Government is facing growing pressure to abandon its much publicised plan to build a statue of him in London's Parliament Square to stand alongside those of some of the world’s other great statesmen.

The plan, announced by the Chancellor of Exchequer George Osborne and the then Foreign Secretary William Hague on their recent visit to India, coincides with the upcoming 400th anniversary celebrations of Indo-British relations.

But now a blazing row has erupted with several Indian-origin groups opposing the move arguing that Gandhi's "despicable sexual exploitation of women" to test his celibacy and his covert approval of the caste system make him unsuitable for such an honour. Crucially, its most high- profile and vocal critic also happens to be chair of the anniversary celebrations and she has vowed to do her "damnedest" to stop the government from going ahead.

Kusoom Vadgama, founder of the Indo-British Heritage Trust, has called the proposed statue "an affront" to Indian women and launched a public petition against it.

" I'm not going to go away quietly," she told Firstpost, pointing out that the recent spate of incidents of rape and hanging of victims of sexual assaults in India have "forced" her to speak up.

"There is something very unpleasant about this statue in Parliament Square and I will do my damnedest to stop it."

The 82 -year-old Indian-origin eye specialist and author of several books on the history of India-British relations, said that she grew up "revering" Gandhi for his anti-colonial struggle but changed her mind when she read that he used young women for his "self- designed celibacy test".

"I looked upon him as God ... I used to fast when he fasted, I preached Gandhi- ism but when I learned about what he did to women including his own grand- niece I was disgusted."

Quivering with anger Ms Vadgama told me she knew she would be "pilloried" for attacking Gandhi but exploitation of women was too serious a matter to be buried quietly.

"No man, hero or a villain has the right to put women to this level of debasement. What is unbelievable is that nobody dare point a finger at Gandhi. It has taken me decades to speak openly. I spoke up after the recent abuse, killing and hanging of women in India. It was such an emotional thing that I couldn’t remain silent any more."

Others who have waded into the row include the pro- Khalistani Sikh Federation (UK), and Dalit activists. The Federation’s chief Bhai Amrik Singh has written to Culture Secretary Sajid Javid describing Gandhi as a "sexual weirdo" and "anti- Sikh ". Gandhi "discriminated on the basis of the Hindu caste system which is outlawed in the UK" and it would be "totally inappropriate" to confer an official honour on him, the letter says.

Dalits say Gandhi was a “closet racist” arguing that he contributed to "normalising" the caste system by using the euphemism Harijans ( children of God ) to describe its victims.

"He didn't do anything to fight casteism but simply gave it a nice sounding label," said one campaigner.

And that is just the Indian diaspora saying "no" to yet another Gandhi statue in London when there is already one barely a few miles away in Tavistock Square.

Several heavyweight British politicians and commentators have also attacked the move though for different reasons. They believe it is a "cheap and cynical stunt ", as one put it, to buy favours with New Delhi at a time when Britain is desperately trying to sell arms to India. Dubbing it a "statue for arms" scandal , former Labour deputy prime minister John Prescott said that "to trade off an arms deal with the statue of a man who typified peaceful protest goes against all that he believed in".

Others have pointed out that Gandhi was not a parliamentarian and, therefore, it makes no sense to have his bust in Parliament Square. A more suitable choice would have been Dadabhai Naoroji, the first Indian origin MP elected to British Parliament in 1892.

The right-wing media has seized on it to push its own xenophobic agenda asking, 'why do we need another foreigner's statue when there are enough Brits who are worthy of such an honour?'

But it is really the issues raised by Indian campaigners that are making the headlines for two reasons:

* They feed into India's image as a sexist and casteist society with people asking :"Et tu Gandhi?";

* they chime with the domestic debate around "historic claims" of sexual abuse of vulnerable women by high- profile public figures including politicians.
The problem with the campaign is not, as some have alleged, that it is "disrespectful" of Gandhi or that Ms Vadgama is "nitpicking" . It is rather that it has turned into a bit of a bandwagon on which all sorts of groups with a vested interest in bashing Gandhi have jumped on.

In fact Ms Vadgama is conscious of it and is at pains to distance herself from those who are using it for their own political purposes.

Another problem is that it conflates one aspect of Gandhi's private life ---scandalous though it was --with his public life whose profound moral influence on the world is not contested even by his worst critics.

Yes, no doubt, he was a complex man and, indeed, a bit of a reactionary on social issues. Even his politics was not exactly progressive and many including Nehru looked upon his policy of non- violence with scepticism. But ultimately he left a legacy that found him a place not only on the right side of history but also on "the right side of morality" as one India observer wrote in The Times.

In Parliament Square there are already statues of 10 British and world leaders; and not one of them could claim to have an unblemished private life. And that includes Nelson Mandela.

But fair play to Ms Vagdama for reminding the world that even Gandhi’s cupboard was not without skeletons. She says she knows that she is “not going to win’’ but has ensured that the statue "will never have good vibes’’. Suddenly, there is a big question mark over the British government’s grand gesture which, in a breathless speech in Delhi last month, Mr Osborne hailed as “fitting tribute …and a permanent monument to our friendship with India’’.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/sexu...ng-gandhi-statue-uks-parl-square-1671997.html
 

soja

Support BGOL
Registered
I was Joburg recently and still have statues and public memorials for Gandhi :smh:
 

Gazoo

The Big Brain
BGOL Investor
Is it possible to separate Ghandi from his movement? Maybe MLK did this. While history has been exposing Ghandi for the person that he really was. Can we at the same time say his strategy was good? Or do we throw the baby out with the bath water? This can be said of many in history that did good but had moral failings.
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-real-mahatma-gandhi/308550/

The Real Mahatma Gandhi
Questioning the moral heroism of India’s most revered figure

The Atlantic Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.



JOSEPH LELYVELD SUBTLY tips his hand in his title. The word Mahatma (often employed in ordinary journalistic usage without any definite article, as if it were Mohandas Gandhi’s first name) is actually the Sanskrit word for “Great Soul.” It is a religio-spiritual honorific, to be assumed or awarded only by acclaim, and it achieved most of its currency in the West by association with Madame Blavatsky’s somewhat risible “Theosophy” movement, forerunner of many American and European tendencies to be found in writers, as discrepant as Annie Besant and T. S. Eliot, who nurture themselves on the supposedly holy character of the subcontinent. The repetition, unlikely to be accidental in the case of a writer as scrupulous as Lelyveld, seems to amount to an endorsement. In a different way, the subtitle reinforces the same idea. Not Gandhi’s struggle for India, but with it: as if this vast and antique land was somehow too refractory and ungrateful (recalcitrant is a word to which Lelyveld recurs) to be fully deserving of Gandhi’s sacrificial endeavors on its behalf.


But with perhaps equivalent subtlety—because he generally refrains from imposing any one interpretation upon the reader—Lelyveld furnishes us with the very material out of which one might constitute a refutation of this common opinion. The belief that India fell short of, and continues to disappoint, the ideals of one of its founding fathers is an extremely persistent one. The standard view of Gandhi is that he cut his ethical teeth by opposing racial discrimination in South Africa, failed to dent the intransigent system there but had greater success with nonviolent civil disobedience in British India, broke his heart and ruined his health by opposing the Hindu caste system, strove to reconcile Hindus and Muslims, failed to prevent a sanguinary partition, and was murdered just after attaining a partial and mutilated independence that nonetheless endures: a monument not to his own shortcomings but to those of others.

Lelyveld examines all these pious beliefs and finds, or permits us to conclude, that they belong in the realm of the not-quite-true. Thus, Gandhi and his followers were not much exercised by the treatment of black Africans in South Africa, alluding to them in print as “kaffirs” and even organizing medical orderlies and other noncombatant contributors for a punitive war against the Zulus. Then, Gandhi did fight quite tenaciously against the horrors of “untouchability” but for much of his life was less decided about the need to challenge the caste system tout court. He was not above making sectarian deals with (and against) India’s Muslims. And he considered India’s chief enemy to be modernity, arguing until well into the 1940s that the new nation should abhor industry and technology and relocate its core identity and practice in the ancient rhythms of village life and the spinning wheel. “India’s salvation,” he wrote in 1909, “consists in unlearning what she has learnt during the past fifty years. The railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors, and such like have all to go.” The rather sinister concept of “unlearning,” explicitly tied to the more ethereal notion of “salvation,” has more in common with Wahhabism than with the figures of Mandela, King, or the other moral heroes with whom Gandhi’s name is linked.



NEED A LIFT?
Advertisement by Estée Lauder

A related argument has to do with the moral texture and relevance of Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa, or nonviolence, with its counterpart of satyagraha, best translated as “civil disobedience.” It is most usually conceded that, without the declining and increasingly desperate British as his antagonist, Gandhi and his tactics would have fared no better than they had in the face of the remorseless pioneers of apartheid. This concession usually preserves intact the belief that Gandhi’s methods were pure in heart. But it may be observed that the threat to starve himself to death involved him in the deliberate and believable threat of violence, he himself once referring to this tactic as “the worst form of coercion.” It could certainly be argued that launching a full-blown “Quit India” campaign against the British in 1942 amounted to letting Hirohito do his fighting for him.

And it is not disputable that Gandhi himself regarded his own versions of ahimsa and satyagraha as universally applicable. By 1939, he was announcing that, if adopted by “a single Jew standing up and refusing to bow to Hitler’s decrees,” such methods might suffice to “melt Hitler’s heart.” This may read like mere foolishness, but a personal letter to the Führer in the same year began with the words My friend and went on, ingratiatingly, to ask: “Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success?” Apart from its conceit, this would appear to be suggesting that Hitler, too, might hope to get more of what he wanted by adopting a more herbivorous approach. Gandhi also instructed a Chinese visitor to “shame some Japanese” by passivity in the face of invasion, and found time to lecture a member of the South African National Congress about the vices of Western apparel. “You must not … feel ashamed of carrying an assagai, or of going around with only a tiny clout round your loins.” (One tries to picture Nelson Mandela taking this homespun counsel, which draws upon the most clichéd impression of African dress and tradition.)

Gandhi was forever nominating himself as a mediator: in 1937 in Palestine, for example, where he concluded that Jews could demand a state of their own only if all Arab opinion were to become reconciled to it; and later unsolicitedly advising the peoples of Czechoslovakia to try what Lelyveld calls “satyagraha to combat storm troopers.” The nullity of this needs no emphasis: what is more striking—in one venerated so widely for modest self-effacement—is its arrogance. Recording these successive efforts at quasi-diplomacy and “peacemaking,” Lelyveld lapses into near-euphemism. At one point he calls Gandhi’s initiatives “a mixed bag, full of trenchant moral insights, desperate appeals, and self-deluding simplicities.” The crawling letter to Hitler, he summarizes as “a desperate, naive mix of humility and ego” and as one of a series of “futile, well-intentioned missives.” We can certainly detect the influence of Saul Bellow’s “Good Intentions Paving Company,” but the trenchant moral insights and the humility are distinctly less conspicuous.


When Mother Teresa—another denizen of that unworldly India of redemption by self-abnegation—had her audience with Pope Paul VI, she reportedly took a bus to the Vatican and wore only her everyday sari and sandals. I wrote at the time that, if true, this was not modesty but ostentation. Perhaps this shows only my Eurocentric bias (though vide my point above about Nelson Mandela), yet whole passages of this book are rendered oppressive to read—and this is by no means Lelyveld’s fault—by the necessity of recording every meager gram that Gandhi ingested on his dietary regimes, every square inch of unclothed limb and torso that he felt it necessary for the whole world to see, every stitch of painstakingly homemade cloth in which he draped the remainder, every act of abstention from sex, and every exercise in physical self-mortification. In point of personality, these are more usually the lineaments of the fanatic and martyrdom-seeker while, in point of ideology, they represent the highly dubious idea that asceticism and austerity—even poverty—are good for the soul.

Again, such reactionary ideas were supposed by Gandhi to be binding on others as well as himself. He adopted the Hindu form of chastity known as brahmacharya and thought it enough to merely inform his wife of his decision.

Talking with a visiting Margaret Sanger, advocate of female sexual emancipation and birth control, he not only denied the importance of women’s sexual health but—according to witnesses of the conversation—gave himself a blood-pressure attack while doing so.

Lelyveld has created a minor scandal in India by instancing some lapses on Gandhi’s part—including one possibly homosexual episode—from this supposedly exalted standard.

But given what we know about gurus in general, this is fairly mild and, to be fair, it does not seem to have involved the exploitation of credulous acolytes, or not all that much.

(He did employ his grand-niece Manu for the furtive purpose of lying in bed with him to test his ability to resist erections.)

Nonetheless, one might take a moment to imagine life in one of Gandhi’s often-vaunted “700,000 villages of India,” beating heart of the traditional society, if the spinning wheel had indeed remained the leading mode of production and the position of women had been brought into accord with his teachings. If the main residue of that bucolic sentiment is the ubiquitous spinning-wheel symbol, this situation may represent not the triumph of a vulgar materialism that would have brought sorrow to the Mahatma, so much as the observably universal ambition of Indians to urbanize as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

How did Gandhi confront the other salient tasks of a nation builder: the question of Hindu fundamentalism and the directly related problem of relations with the large Muslim minority? Here one is obliged to emphasize another word from the Gandhian thesaurus: the naming of the country’s immiserated “untouchables” as Harijans, or “children of god.” Here, the euphemism is direct and unvarnished. But as it happens, and as is very frequently forgotten, the millions of untouchables had their own highly literate and articulate spokesman in the person of B. R. Ambedkar, who called on the victims of the caste system to abandon outright the Hindu faith that codified and enshrined their status as subhumans. (Ambedkar himself adopted Buddhism.) Untouchables also tended to reject the condescension implicit in the Harijan designation, preferring to go under the title of Dalits, which modern India has adopted. Gandhi and Ambedkar quarreled repeatedly over the question of special political representation for those at the despised bottom of the caste ladder; Ambedkar supported it, suspecting that Congress Party rule would be another name under which high-caste Hindus would become the successors of the British Raj.

Lelyveld offers in passing the startling observation that Gandhi, who loftily asserted, “I claim myself in my own person to represent the vast mass of the untouchables,” had in point of fact “done next to nothing to organize and lead” them. On his way back from the 1931 London conference on Indian independence at which the differences with Ambedkar revealed themselves as insuperable, Gandhi stopped in Rome for a meeting with Mussolini, after which he wrote effusively of Il Duce’s “service to the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about coordination between capital and labor [and] his passionate love for his people.” Imprisoned by the British on his return, he threatened to starve himself to death if special political dispensation was granted to untouchables … To my own alarm, I found myself sympathizing with Churchill’s tirade against this self-righteous combination of half-naked “fakir” and “seditious Middle Temple lawyer,” and with the viceroy’s exasperated staff who found themselves intercepting the correspondence between fakir and Führer.

If the Dalits had good reason to fear that they would be subordinated to Hindu-majority tyranny after the attainment of self-rule, the Muslims of the subcontinent equally dreaded a similar outcome. Lelyveld’s treatment of this still-inflamed subject is distinctive and original. I had not known that, in the early 1920s, Gandhi reposed his whole political weight in favor of the Indian Muslim demand for the restoration of the Ottoman caliphate as the guarantor of Muslim holy places. This so-called Khilafat movement, while conveniently anti-British in its implications, was by definition taking place in the realm of illusion, since by that time even the Turks themselves had rejected the rule of the sultan. But it gave Gandhi a platform to address sectarian and traditionalist Muslim throngs, and in his own eyes, this apparently trumped its quixotry. Whether the encouragement of Islamist ancien régime tendencies among Muslims was a useful path to overcoming communal divisions is a question on which Lelyveld is politely neutral. He does note that one Muslim leader who remained unimpressed by the Khilafat agitation was Mohammed Ali Jinnah, a relatively secular nationalist and modernist who at an early session of the Congress Party pointedly referred to “Mister” rather than “Mahatma” Gandhi. He was not the only one to see through Gandhi’s theatrical attempts to base reconciliation on ephemeral and crowd-pleasing themes: Lelyveld records that as early as 1921, “the impressive coalition Gandhi had built and inspired was proving to be jerry-built.” Jinnah’s future as the founder of the state of Pakistan could not then be imagined, but when it did become imaginable it was again as a consequence of a moment of Gandhian opportunism: when “the Mahatma” called on all Congress Party officials to leave their posts in 1942, the Muslim League had only to tell its own supporters to stay at work to guarantee itself a much greater share of power after Japan had been defeated.

Gandhi cannot escape culpability for being the only major preacher of appeasement who never changed his mind. The overused word is here fully applicable, as Gandhi entreated the British to let the Nazis

take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself man, woman and child, to be slaughtered …
This passage is revealing, not so much for its metaphysical amorality as for its demonstration of what was always latent in Gandhism: a highly dubious employment of the mind-body distinction. For him, the material and physical world was gross and polluting and selfish, while all that pertained to the “soul” was axiomatically ideal and altruistic. (Let Hitler have Britain’s “beautiful buildings,” while their expelled inhabitants, even as they submitted to extermination, meditated on the sublime.) This false antithesis is the basis for all religious fundamentalism, even as its deliberate indifference permits and even encourages sharp deterioration in the world of “real” conditions. Not entirely unlike his contemporary fighter for independence Eamon De Valera, who yearned for an impossible Ireland that spoke Gaelic, resisted modernity, and put its trust in a priestly caste, Gandhi had a vision of an “unpolluted” India that owed a great deal to the ancient Hindu fear and prohibition of anything that originated from “across the black water.”


Lelyveld’s high standing as a reporter was earned largely by his work in South Africa, culminating in the memorable book Move Your Shadow, which anatomized the deep psychology of racism. And it may well have been Gandhi’s years in that country that helped imbue him with a lifelong fear of a distraught, occluded relationship between sexuality, violence, and “hygiene.” Originally projected onto the sheer physicality of the threatening Zulus, this extreme fastidiousness lent him a certain identification with essentially conservative ideas of purity and order and simplicity. Very cleverly, Lelyveld connects this ethos to V. S. Naipaul’s shocked confrontation with Indian squalor—or, to be more precise, with Indian levels of public defecation—in his first study of the country, An Area of Darkness. It is not, perhaps, so surprising that the Brahmin-like Naipaul found so much to admire in the prim ex-attorney who experienced such combined revulsion and exaltation at the sheer filth and chaos of his own version of the beloved country. This complex of odi et amo, which led Gandhi to handle the night soil of beggars and sweepers as an act of restitution, also made him suspicious of passions and repelled by those—not by any means excluding untouchables and Muslims—who seemed to exhibit them. The strenuous manner of his fasts and mortifications and personal sexual repressions found a paradoxical counterpart in his attachment to passivity and acceptance.

Auden wrote of Yeats that he “became his admirers,” and Naipaul was to annex this line in tracing the way that Gandhi became more powerless as he grew more revered. Lelyveld concludes his Author’s Note by saying, “Even now, he doesn’t let Indians—or, for that matter, the rest of us—off easy.” But can it be that the admirers are too inclined to return a lenient verdict on their own highly protean Mahatma? This book provides the evidence for both readings, depending on whether you think Gandhi was a friend of the poor or a friend of poverty, and whether or not you can notice something grotesque—even something conceited—in the notion that the meek should inherit the Earth.
 
Last edited:

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
https://newrepublic.com/article/123728/gandhis-unequal-justice-south-africa

Gandhi’s Unequal Justice in South Africa
The young lawyer fought the British empire for the rights of Indians, but not those of the Zulus he lived among.
By ASHWIN DESAI and GOOLAM VAHED
November 19, 2015
a69d6154927ae1701c6b46ca399473edc6e5604d.jpeg

Mahatma Gandhi as a law student, 1887Henry Guttmann / Getty

Gandhi was 24 years old when he arrived in Natal, South Africa in May 1893, the month in which white settlers celebrated the 50th anniversary of Natal’s annexation by the British Crown. Gandhi was called to the Bar in June 1891 and was struggling to establish a law practice in Bombay when the firm of Dada Abdulla & Co., offered him a year-long contract to assist in a legal matter on the southern tip of Africa. Gandhi took up the offer consisting of a first class passage to Natal, living expenses and a fee of £105. When Gandhi landed at Port Natal there were roughly as many Indians as whites in the colony. Natal’s population was pegged at 584,326 in 1893. Whites numbered 45,707 (8 percent) and Indians 35,411 (6 percent). Zulus made up almost 85 percent of the population.

Why (Almost) Everyone Likes Jake Tapper
Central to the imperial project in this part of the British Empire was the subjugation of the Zulu. The Zulu kingdom rose to power during the reign of Shaka (1816–28) and his brother Dingane (1828–40), consolidated under their brother Mpande (1840–72), and collapsed during the reign of Mpande’s son, Cetshwayo (1872–84). The British contrived ways to separate Europeans from Africans. Administratively, they divided the colony of Natal from Mpande’s Zulu kingdom along the Thukela River in 1843 while tracts of land were granted to amakhosi (chiefs) in Natal who lived relatively autonomous lives in these reserves. The aim of this “ethnic transfer” was to separate white from black in order to achieve settler hegemony.

The discovery of diamonds in Kimberley in the late 1870s required a stable environment for white economic exploitation. British officials felt that some Zulu chiefs were becoming too independent and Sir Bartle Frere, British High Commissioner for South Africa from March 1877 onwards, set out to annex the Zulu kingdom. He found a pretext to declare war in 1879. The Zulus won the Battle of Isandlwana against the then greatest military power in the world but eventually succumbed. Cetshwayo was exiled to the Cape but Queen Victoria subsequently gave him permission to rule a portion of his former kingdom in the hope that he would restore order. Cetshwayo’s son Dinuzulu was proclaimed king when Cetshwayo died in 1884 but this position was largely ceremonial. With the power of the Zulu kingdom eroded, the pace of land dispossession by both British and Boer accelerated.

This is the canvas against which the arrival of Indians in Natal from 1860 must be viewed. The Indian population included indentured workers, “passenger” migrants who arrived at their own expense, and “time-expired” Indians who had completed their contracts of indenture and made Natal “home.” Larger wholesale traders like Dada Abdulla, who brought Gandhi to Natal, and smaller dukawallahs and hawkers, many of whom had just completed their indentures, were spread out across the city and countryside of Natal. A steady trickle of Indians followed the discovery of diamonds to Kimberley in the 1870s and then in the 1880s the gold rush into the Transvaal.

This dispersal of Indians across the colony, their trespassing into white trading and residential monopolies, and their ability to undercut prices and offer credit to white and black customers alike, raised the ire of many settlers. Harry Escombe, future Prime Minister of Natal, told the Wragg Commission of 1885–87 which had been established to investigate alleged abuses in the system of indenture, that the presence of Indian traders “entailed a competition which was simply impossible as far as Europeans were concerned, on account of the different habits of life.”

Gandhi felt the weight of white power virtually upon his arrival in the colony. Within days of landing in Natal, the magistrate asked Gandhi to remove his turban when he went to court with Dada Abdulla. Gandhi refused and stormed out of the courtroom. Barely two weeks later, Gandhi was thrown off a first-class train compartment at Pietermaritzburg on the night of June 7, 1893 when a white passenger protested against sharing the carriage with a “coolie.”

e97ea4f79938c3045f3665ce329cf3103d9048e2.jpeg

Mahatma Gandhi as a young lawyer, c. 1906.Hulton Archive / Getty
Gandhi returned to India in July 1896 to publicize the Indian plight in Natal and to bring back his family. At a speech in Bombay, Gandhi stated that whites in Natal desired to “degrade us to the level of the raw ****** whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”

This was a theme that would run through much of Gandhi’s life in South Africa. India occupied a privileged position in the hierarchy of British imperial possessions. There was a feeling among some British colonial officials that Indians were positioned higher up the chain of civilization than Africans as they originated from the same Aryan root. The managers of the Empire’s jewel were keen to avoid events in other parts of the British globe offending or, worse, inflaming, national feeling on the subcontinent. In geopolitical terms, Indians in South Africa counted far more than the Zulu, a sense that Gandhi was keen to tap into.

Gandhi was also partial to the idea of Indo-Aryan bloodlines. The Black African stood outside and below these civilized standards. This echoed a broader global context in which race had become a dominant theme in Western intellectual life in the nineteenth century, emphasizing a scientific understanding of race that focused on biological differences. European industrial progress and the conquest of black peoples were seen as the empirical evidence of racial science which offered Europeans a clear validation of their superior place in the world. Many works of the time believed Africans were less aesthetically appealing than Europeans, even ugly, barbaric and less intelligent.

The Gandhian vision sought to embrace diasporic Indians and claim affinity with Europeans as (civilized) Aryans and imperial citizens. This vision was conspicuous in its exclusion of Africans. Gandhi’s newspaper Indian Opinion, for example, had little to say about Africans. “Gandhi had neighbors like John Dube with whom he wanted little to do,” writes Isabel Hofmeyr, in her book Gandhi’s Printing Press. While Phoenix, where Gandhi opened a settlement in 1904, was in close proximity to Dube’s Ohlange Institute, “the leaders of these two remarkable communities kept their distance and met rarely. ... Both expounded different versions of ‘race pride’ with Dube involved in redeeming ‘Africa’ and Gandhi in nurturing ‘India.’”

sup.org.
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
https://thewire.in/73522/gandhi-and-africans/

Some of Gandhi's Early Views on Africans Were Racist. But That Was Before He Became Mahatma
It is important to remember that the early Gandhi had little contact with Africans and did not understand their sensitivities.

gandhifeatured1-1-1024x304.jpg




E.S. Reddy
HISTORY
1 YEAR AGO



Mahatma Gandhi. Credit: Ita Mehrotra

The recent agitation at the University of Legon in Ghana for the removal of a statue of Mahatma Gandhi was provoked by a few statements made by the young Gandhi soon after he arrived in South Africa in 1893, long before he came to know the Africans. These statements, plucked from the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi – published by the Indian government without any attempts at contextualising or annotating them – completely distort what his life represents.

Gandhi said, “My life is my message”. His life shows how an ordinary human being who has many weaknesses can rise to great heights by shedding his early prejudices and by adhering to love and non-violence instead of hate and greed. This message should be an encouragement for the youth.

Gandhi practiced what he preached. He conquered fear and defied the racist regime in South Africa and in imperialist Britain. He went to prison five times in South Africa and nine times in India during his struggle against racism and colonialism. He was incorruptible and forsook consumerism, which had become a menace to progress. He espoused dignity of labour and the need to protect the environment. He became a symbol of peace and non-violence and his appeal is universal.

As Nelson Mandela had said in February 2007:

“In a world driven by violence and strife, Gandhi’s message of peace and nonviolence holds the key to human survival in the 21st century. He rightly believed in the efficacy of pitting the soul force of the satyagraha against the brute force of the oppressor and in effect converting the oppressor to the right and moral point.”

Gandhi, an immature settler in Natal

In 1893, the 23-year-old Gandhi arrived in Durban. He was enrolled as a barrister at the Inner Temple in London, but failed in his profession in India. He only excelled at drafting petitions and memoranda. A merchant in Durban offered him a one-year job to assist his lawyer in a litigation.


Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa in 1895. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

This consisted mainly of translating accounts written in Gujarati to English. Even though the salary was a mere 100 pounds a year, Gandhi accepted the offer in the hope of finding better opportunities in South Africa.

In a 1937 speech he would look back on his early life:

“At school the teachers did not consider me a very bright boy. They knew that I was a good boy, but not a bright boy. I never knew first class and second class. I barely passed. I was a dull boy. I could not even speak properly. Even when I went to South Africa I went only as a clerk.”

After the year was over, Gandhi managed to get an assignment from the merchants in Durban to advise and assist them on dealing with the actions of the Natal government and the local authorities against them. They offered 300 pounds a year in retainers. The immediate issue was the proposal to remove the voting rights of the few rich Indians who had them.

The class and colour prejudices Gandhi carried from India were reinforced by those of the merchants and the white officers he dealt with. In countering the arguments of the white racists, he tried to show that Indians, unlike the Africans, had an ancient civilisation. He used the language of the whites, which was offensive to Africans, and referred to them as ‘kaffirs.’

Mandela was well aware of the racist statements made by Gandhi when he was young. He wrote in an article in 1995, “Gandhi must be forgiven those prejudices and judged in the context of the time and circumstances. We are looking here at the young Gandhi, still to become Mahatma, when he was without any human prejudice save that in favour of truth and justice.”
The term ****** was not considered offensive at that time in South Africa as it became in later years. It was widely used, for example ‘****** express’ for the train and ‘****** corn’ for the grain. The educated Christian Africans, who were known as ‘kholwa’, sometimes called the illiterate Africans kaffirs. Yet, it is surprising that Gandhi used that term. He must have known how the term ****** – meaning infidel – was a derogatory term used by Muslims against Hindus in India.


Mahatma Gandhi in Johannesburg. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Gandhi had little contact with Africans then and did not understand their sensitivities. From today’s perspective, some of his statements in the first two years of his employment are unpardonable and very un-Gandhian.

But Gandhi possessed no malice. He was aware that the race prejudice of the whites was against Indians and Africans and all other non-white people. He wrote to the Times of Natal on October 25, 1894:

“The Indians do not regret that capable natives can exercise the franchise. They would regret if it were otherwise. They, however, assert that they too, if capable, should have the right. You, in your wisdom, would not allow the Indian or the native the precious privilege under any circumstances, because they have a dark skin.”

In opposing the system of import of indentured labour from India, Gandhi pointed out that it was detrimental to the interests of the Africans. India prohibited export of labour to Natal in 1911.

During his stay in Natal from 1893 to 1901, Gandhi considered himself a temporary settler. He left for India in October 1901, but returned after the end of the Anglo-Boer War a year later at the request of the Indian community to lead deputations to the British secretary of state for colonies in Natal and the Transvaal.

Awakening of Gandhi

John_L_Dube_001.jpg

John L. Dube. Credit: Wikimedia.

Gandhi settled in Transvaal as an attorney and developed a flourishing practice, earning as much as 5,000 pounds a year. He founded the weekly Indian Opinion in 1903.

In 1904, he set up an ashram in Phoenix in Durban, in the midst of Africans and close to the industrial school of John Langalibalele Dube – the first president of the African National Congress. Dube’s weekly called Ilanga lase Natal was initially printed in the press of Indian Opinion and the people from his school often visited the ashram.

But his real concern was serving the Indian community in South Africa. He felt that Indians would be respected if they showed that they were loyal subjects of the British Empire. He had led an Indian ambulance corps of about a thousand volunteers for nearly six weeks during the Anglo-Boer War.

In 1906, he committed a blunder which proved to be a blessing. During the military operations of the Natal militia against chief Bambata and his followers – who refused to pay a new poll tax – he organised a small stretcher-bearer corps of about 20 Indians. Gandhi did not understand the nature or scope of the rebellion. The corps, which served for a little over a month, was asked to take care of the wounded and whipped Africans since no white would treat them. Seeing the brutality of the whites against the Africans was a traumatic experience for Gandhi.

Nelson Mandela wrote in an article in Time magazine on December 31, 1999:

“His awakening came on the hilly terrain of the so-called Bambatha rebellion… British brutality against the Zulus roused his soul against violence as nothing had done before. He determined on that battlefield to wrest himself of all material attachments and devote himself completely and totally to eliminating violence and serving humanity.”

He took a vow of celibacy and wrote to his brother that he had no interest in worldly possessions.


Gandhi with the stretcher-bearers of the Indian Ambulance Corps during the Boer War, South-Africa. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Soon after he returned to Johannesburg, the Transvaal government gazetted a humiliating ordinance against the Asiatics. Gandhi recognised that making petitions and deputations to the racist rulers were of no avail unless there was force behind them. He decided to defy the law and mobilised the Indian community to court imprisonment. He discovered non-violent resistance (satyagraha) which was, in essence, pitting the power of the people against guns.

By 1914, more than 50,000 Indian workers had gone on strike, 10,000 Indians had been jailed, more than a dozen Indians had been killed and many more tortured or injured. This non-violent resistance forced the racist white government of South Africa to concede the main demands of the struggle.

During the course of the struggle, Gandhi widened his horizon and publicly supported African rights. He declared in an address to the YMCA in 1908:

“South Africa would probably be a howling wilderness without the Africans…”

“If we look into the future, is it not a heritage we have to leave to posterity that all the different races commingle and produce a civilisation that perhaps the world has not yet seen.”

In October 1910 he said:

“The whites… have occupied the country forcibly and appropriated it to themselves. That, of course, does not prove their right to it. A large number even from among them believe that they will have to fight again to defend their occupation. But we shall say no more about this. One will reap as one sows.” (Indian Opinion, October 22, 1910)

He also praised African leaders. In his reporting of a speech made by Dube for Indian Opinion on September 2, 1905, he said that Dube was an African “of whom one should know.”

ohn_Tengo_Jabavu_and_his_son_Davidson_Don_Tengo_around_1903.jpg

John Tengo Jabavu and his son Davidson Don Tengo around 1903. Credit: Wikimedia

He commended the efforts of John Tengo Jabavu to raise the enormous sum of 50,000 pounds from Africans for establishing a college for Africans. He wrote:

“… it is not to be wondered at that an awakening people, like the great native races of South Africa, are moved by something that has been described as being very much akin to religious fervour… British Indians in South Africa have much to learn from this example of self sacrifice. If the natives of South Africa, with all their financial disabilities and social disadvantages, are capable of putting forth this local effort, is it not incumbent upon the British Indian community to take the lesson to heart, and press forward the matter of educational facilities with far greater energy and enthusiasm than have been used hitherto?” (Indian Opinion, March 17, 1906)

He congratulated W.B. Rubusana on being elected to the Cape Provincial Council and commented:

“That Dr. Rubusana can sit in the Provincial Council but not in the Union Parliament is a glaring anomaly which must disappear if South Africans are to become a real nation in the near future.” (Indian Opinion, September 24, 1910)

These statements were published in the Gujarati section of Indian Opinion in order to rouse respect towards Africans.

Hermann Kallenbach, an associate of Gandhi, spoke of their identification with Africans in an interview in June 1937:

“A black man may not use tramcars, so we walked together for miles. A black man may not use a hotel lift and bathroom, so both of us gladly left the use of both. A black man may not eat in the common dining room [so] I said I would not go there myself and we had our food in our rooms.” (Harijan, June 12, 1937)

Gandhi came to know several educated Africans who were impressed by the organisation and by the struggle of Indians, which was led by him. In 1910, there were discussions on the formation of a national body to defend African rights. Pixley ka Isaka Seme, who initiated the proposal, visited Gandhi at the Tolstoy Farm for consultation.

The South African Native National Congress (later renamed the African National Congress) was formed in 1912 and was welcomed by Gandhi. He never sought to impose his leadership over the African people, the sons of the soil, but presented them with the example of satyagraha as a means of deliverance from oppression.

India’s freedom must lead to Africa’s freedom

Gandhi was moved by the courage and determination of women in the last stage of satyagraha in 1913. The heroism of the working men and women led him to declare in 1914, “These men and women are the salt of India; on them will be built the Indian nation that is to be.”


Gandhi with the leaders of the non-violent resistance movement in South Africa. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

After returning to India, Gandhi built perhaps the largest mass movement in history of the Indian freedom struggle by uniting people of all classes and encouraging women to participate.

He kept up his interest in South Africa and often wrote about the oppression of the Africans.

He said in a speech at Oxford on October 24, 1931:

“… as there has been an awakening in India, even so there will be an awakening in South Africa with its vastly richer resources – natural, mineral and human. The mighty English look quite pygmies before the mighty races of Africa. They are noble savages after all, you will say. They are certainly noble, but no savages and in the course of a few years the Western nations may cease to find in Africa a dumping ground for their wares.”

In referring to “South African races,” he declared in Cambridge on November 1, 1931, “Our deliverance must mean their deliverance.”

In an interview to Reverend S.S. Tema – a member of the ANC – on January 1, 1939, he said:

“The Indians are a microscopic minority. They can never be a ‘menace’ to the white population. You, on the other hand, are the sons of the soil who are being robbed of your inheritance. You are bound to resist that. Yours is a far bigger issue. It ought not to be mixed up with that of the Indian. This does not preclude the establishment of the friendliest relations between the two races. The Indians can cooperate with you in a number of ways. They can help you by always acting on the square towards you.”

In an interview to a South African Indian delegation in April 1946, he said, “Their slogan today is no longer merely ‘Asia for the Asiatics’ or ‘Africa for the Africans,’ but the unity of all the exploited races of the earth. On India rests the burden of pointing the way to all the exploited races.”

He abandoned his hesitation over joint action when Africans, people of colour and whites, all went to prison to show their solidarity with the Indians during the Indian passive resistance in South Africa. In May 1947, he told Y.M. Dadoo and G.M. Naicker, the leaders of the resistance, “Political cooperation among all the exploited races in South Africa can only result in mutual goodwill if it is wisely directed and based on truth and nonviolence.”


Indian passive resistance in South Africa 1946. Credit: Gandhi-Luthuli Documentation Centre

Gandhi’s declaration that India’s freedom must lead to freedom of other oppressed people formed the basis of the foreign policy of India after independence. Under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, India espoused the cause of freedom in the United Nations and the Commonwealth, in sports bodies and other forums. India imposed sanctions against South Africa in 1946 and earned the hostility of the western powers.

Mandela on Gandhi

Leaders of South Africa have often praised Gandhi’s contribution to their liberation from apartheid and for the “miracle” of peaceful transition.

In a letter to India, which was smuggled from prison in 1980, Nelson Mandela wrote, “… in 21 years of his stay in South Africa we were to witness the birth of ideas and methods of struggle that have exerted an incalculable influence on the history of the peoples of India and South Africa.”


Nelson Mandela. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

After his release from prison, Mandela made a number of statements that are worth recalling:

“Gandhi’s political technique and elements of the nonviolent philosophy developed during his stay in Johannesburg became the enduring legacy for the continuing struggle against racial discrimination in South Africa.” (Speech made during the unveiling of the statue of Gandhi in Johannesburg in October 2003)

“The values of tolerance, mutual respect and unity, for which he stood and acted, had a profound influence on our liberation movement and on my own thinking. They inspire us today in our efforts of reconciliation and nation building.” (Speech made in Pietermaritzburg on April 25, 1997)

“His [Gandhi’s] philosophy contributed in no small measure in bringing about a peaceful transformation in South Africa and in healing the destructive human divisions that had been spawned by the abhorrent practice of apartheid…”

“He is the archetypal anticolonial revolutionary. His strategy of noncooperation, his assertion that we can be dominated only if we cooperate with our dominators and his nonviolent resistance inspired anticolonial and antiracist movements internationally.” (Message to a conference in Delhi on the centenary of satyagraha in January 2007)

“The Mahatma is an integral part of our history.” (Speech made in Pietermaritzburg on June 6, 1993)

“India is Gandhi’s country of birth; South Africa his country of adoption. He was both an Indian and a South African citizen.” (Article in Time, December 31, 1999).

In a speech made in New Delhi on October 15, 1990, he referred to Gandhi as the hero of both India and South Africa.

Mandela was well aware of the racist statements made by Gandhi when he was young. He wrote in an article in 1995, “Gandhi must be forgiven those prejudices and judged in the context of the time and circumstances. We are looking here at the young Gandhi, still to become Mahatma, when he was without any human prejudice save that in favour of truth and justice.”

Many other African and African American leaders, as well as leaders of other movements for freedom and peace, acknowledged that they derived inspiration from Gandhi. None of them were distracted or disturbed by the statements made by the young Gandhi.

India honours leaders of freedom movements

Honouring the leaders of the movements for freedom and peace in other countries and publicising their lives is an important contribution towards human solidarity. The United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on January 24, 1979 recommending that leaders of struggles against apartheid, racial discrimination and colonialism, and for peace and international cooperation be honoured by the international community and that their contributions be made widely known for the education of world public opinion, especially of the youth.

In New Delhi, the capital of India, there exists an Africa Avenue. There are streets named after Mandela, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Martin Luther King Jr. and Kwame Nkrumah. There are similar streets in other cities. The government of India gave its highest honour, Bharat Ratna, to Mandela and the International Gandhi Peace Prize to Julius Nyerere, Mandela and Desmond Tutu.

The statue of Gandhi which some students are now opposing was presented to Ghana by the president of India as a token of friendship between the two countries. The recent events at the University of Legon should not be allowed to undermine that friendship. Let it be remembered that J.B. Danquah and Kwame Nkrumah, leaders of the freedom movement in Ghana, both acknowledged the inspiration of Gandhi. It was India which enabled Ghana (then Gold Coast) to attend the Asian African Conference in Bandung in 1955, even before it was independent, while excluding the racist regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia.


Statue of Mahatma Gandhi at the University of Legon in Ghana. Credit: Twitter

India and Ghana have been partners in the struggle against apartheid and colonialism at the United Nations and other international fora. Gandhi’s statue in Ghana and Nkrumah’s road in New Delhi should symbolise their continued partnership in protecting human dignity and promoting human welfare.

E.S. Reddy is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and director of the UN Centre against Apartheid. He helped to build the international campaign against apartheid in consultation with the liberation movement of South Africa.
 

parisian

International
International Member
dude was a POS when it came to the original women and men of this earth, that's well established and documented
... and yes, he was also a p e d o
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
Thanks fam. Never invested time reseaching him because the intrest just wasn't there. Always took what I heard as gospel. I'll put him on my read list.

Bro it's crazy... someone told me this years ago and I completely dismissed it as crazy. And then someone of Indian descent said it to me and I was shocked. Because no one else ever said one bad word about him especially since MLK admired him. But you know this era, deep dive rabbit hole and I started reading some interesting things but I want FACTS not google rumors.

So far a lot of the negative stuff is true REALLY BAD STUFF but we always have to take into account context and era.

Where he was from his background and upbringing? We shouldn't be surprised. And it also doesn't change the GOOD his actions inspired. We have to be able to do that - I know it's not easy.

But it's important we have the WHOLE picture if we going to put someone in near sainthood.
 
Top