

The Gandhi Nobody Knows (1983) - asciilifeform
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090226171138/http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

======
Estragon
I stopped reading at this point:

    
    
      > ...when Gandhi's wife lay dying of pneumonia and British doctors
      > insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her, Gandhi refused to
      > have this alien medicine injected in her body and simply let her die.
    

True as far as it goes, but a near-slanderous distortion of what actually
happened:

    
    
      To those who tried to bolster her sagging morale saying "You will get
      better soon," Kasturba would respond, "No, my time is up." Shortly after
      seven that evening, Devdas took Mohandas and the doctors aside. In what
      he would later describe as "the sweetest of all wrangles I ever had with
      my father," he pleaded fiercely that Ba be given the life saving
      medicine, even though the doctors told him her condition was beyond
      help. It was Mohandas, after learning that the penicillin had to be
      administered by injection every four to six hours, who finally persuaded
      his youngest son to give up the idea. "Why do you want to prolong your
      mother's agonies after all the suffering she has been through?" Gandhi
      asked. Then he said, "You can't cure her now, no matter what miracle
      drug you may muster. But if you insist, I will not stand in your way. 
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasturba_Gandhi)
    

The OP's calumny is reminiscent of an earlier incident where Kasturba was ill,
and doctors insisted that she needed to eat beef to get better. They asked his
permission, and he said that he would not grant it, but that if she was in a
position to indicate her wishes, she could choose for herself.
<http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhicomesalive/chap01.htm>

If there is something actually interesting and historically verifiable
elsewhere in this apparent hit job of an essay, I'd be grateful for a pointer,
though.

What is it with the recent campaign to slam Gandhi?
([http://www.metafilter.com/101933/We-believe-as-much-in-
the-p...](http://www.metafilter.com/101933/We-believe-as-much-in-the-purity-
of-races-as-we-think-they-do))

~~~
akkartik
I'm not sure what version to trust on that particular story[1], but read on.
It's more an attack on the movie (and an establishment's propaganda) than on
the man.

I'm Indian, and I grew up steeped in the legend of Gandhi. I've always had a
close identification with him. His birthday is adjacent to mine, and I used to
wear these round glasses as an adolescent. I say these things to show that I
should dislike this essay. And yet I find myself unable to. It's a good,
balanced, _exquisitely_ written essay.

And having read it and pondered it and enjoyed it I find my opinion of Gandhi
hasn't materially changed. He had the hustle of an entrepreneur.

 _"Gandhi was erratic, irrational, tyrannical, obstinate. He sometimes verged
on lunacy. He believed in a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant. He
worshipped cows. But I will say this: he was brave. He feared no one."_

Even the attack on Hinduism is interesting (I assume that's the part
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2409364> referred to as looney-land. I
call it 'things you can't say'). It's cathartic to find that there's as much
to criticize about Hinduism as about any of the other major religions,
something I hadn't quite focused on until now. Perhaps I'm losing my roots.

\---

[1] <http://www.hark.com/clips/fcxrvdvphc-who-cares>,
<http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0068895>

~~~
warrenwilkinson
I'm glad you said it first. This is a REALLY well written essay. The writer
obviously knows something about Ghandi. He has clearly read much of the man's
letters, knows who he associated with, has read several biographies, and seems
to know the time period like the back of his hand.

And yet that doesn't seem to matter.

~~~
sid6376
I will politely disagree, from his repeated mention of V.S.Naipaul and also
his suggestion to read his books at the end, it seems the writer had a
conviction and then just decided to justify himeslf by reading and quoting
material which suited his point of view. The article throughout seemed written
by a british apologist and if someone was to form an opinion of the british
rule in india entirely upon this article it would seem that british committed
no atrocities at all on India post the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919 due to
the deep guilt that the incident inflicted on them. So i am uncomfortable
accepting the fact that this article was written by a well-reasoned
individual.

~~~
akkartik
Without meaning to indulge in conversational terrorism
(<http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html>, nit-picking), I don't think you
meant 'at pains' where you used it.

<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/at_pains>

~~~
sid6376
Thanks for that. I have removed the phrase from my answer.

------
ezy
Wow, that was... crazy. A slightly less frothing at the mouth response:

[http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/38b451...](http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/38b451bdbfbefb61)

The OP article had me going, because it was partially correct about the film
being a hagiography. But it went quickly into looney-land about half way
through. If you look up the author and his other writings, you'll realize why.

~~~
bdhe
> The OP article had me going, because it was partially correct about the film
> being a hagiography.

I think the idea and principles that Gandhi stood for are nevertheless
important just as the ideas and principles the Founding Fathers of the US had
in mind when framing the constitution are considered important. The details of
Gandhi's life are slightly less important. Also, people fail to realize the
context behind a lot of Gandhi's misgivings. It was a different era (which is
no excuse) but even Abraham Lincoln wasn't of the opinion that blacks are
equals and the Founding Fathers owned slaves themselves.

The lesson is to take their stories with a pinch of salt, but nevertheless
feel motivated and inspired by the goals and ideals these famous people
represented, not the minutiae of their actual lives.

~~~
pstack
I think the more valuable lesson is that you don't need to white-wash history
to paint a figure as better than they were (especially if they were not
particularly good at all in some cases), simply to uphold the value of the
things we associate with them. Society doesn't have to confuse the two. A
worthy idea or concept can stand on its own, even if we uncover unpleasant
truths about the people involved.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I agree with this, and have for a long time, but I also think that human
society is still evolving, and that evolution has until recently precluded
that kind of behavior.

Great causes have been championed by heroes, moreso than on the merits of the
causes themselves. Heroes are people we can identify with, and reflect a kind
of perfection that most people look up to.

I think this is starting to change, thanks in part to the communication age,
which is not only stripping the white-wash from our heroes but also making
them gradually less necessary.

------
pstack
If there's one thing you don't do, it's offer any criticism of Mother Theresa,
no matter what information there is in the world about her outside of the
perpetuated religious and media portrayal of her to the masses.

If there's a second thing you don't do, it's offer any criticism of Ghandi.

People cling so irrationally to the persona that have been drilled into their
head throughout their entire life that offering any insight or raising any
contradictory perspectives on certain characters draws the same response you'd
get if you went up to a devout religious person and started asking about their
crazy mythology. That is, you encounter a brick-wall that only spouts that you
are wrong, because (instead of The Bible Says So) "she was a saint" or "he was
a pacifist". And that's as far as you'll get. People who have no investment or
interest in either person will be highly offended that you would dare make any
assertions.

Hyped figures perpetuated by media and society are destined to be remembered
this way for eternity and any contradictions -- no matter how scholarly --
will always be categorized as hateful.

Oh, if there's a third thing you don't do, it's offer any criticism of Nelson
Mandela.

Oh, and if there's a fourth thing you don't do, it's offer any criticism of
Che Guevara.

~~~
OstiaAntica
Che Guevara was Stalinist murderer who ran a gulag. Those are facts, not a
criticism.

<http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/>

<http://reason.tv/video/show/killer-chic>

~~~
jbooth
I almost commented a second ago, too, on how Che is actually controversial,
because hippie kids wear him on a t-shirt they got at the mall as a generic
symbol of resistance, and then some conservative asshole always has to come in
with an extremely selective outrage towards human rights, and use overheated
terms like "stalinist" and "gulag". Was Che ever in Russia? How did he run a
gulag?

Meanwhile, neither the hippie nor the conservative could likely tell you
offhand what country the guy was born in. I had to wiki it myself.

~~~
Joakal
I was surprised Che was outside of South America. Here's the list of places he
been to:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:CheGueva...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:CheGuevaraCountries.jpg)
(Including being in Congo during the war)

------
vnorby
_"Gandhi was erratic,irrational, tyrannical, obstinate. He sometimes verged on
lunacy. He believed in a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant. He
worshipped cows."_

That line from the article is ridiculous. Anyway, it is not an original idea
to claim that Gandhi was a puppet of the British Government, an opportunist,
etc. by Western AND Indian thinkers. Yes, the Indian Government has, in many
ways, manufactured his character, as the article claims. Most Indians are
aware of that. However, establishing hero figures is not different than what
many countries, religions, and other "imaginary communities" have done to move
past horrific injustices like Britain's brutal occupation of India. This
article serves no beneficial purpose but to restate: history is written by the
victors.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Yep. Just try and tell a conservative American what kind of person Christopher
Columbus _really_ was, or that Washington nearly got all of his men and
himself captured or killed and was saved only by a freak fog one night.

------
tumpak
He is trying to say Gandhi is flawed and trying desperately to prove it.

I celebrate any man with many flaws who goes on to create wonderful impact in
the world.

I don't think I learned much from the original post. I already knew Gandhi was
flawed. That is why he was wonderful. Being a man with many flaws, he achieved
what was thought impossible.

This reaffirms that we each can change the world despite our own deep flaws.

Critics like to find flaws in each detail and strip us all naked. Thats what
the original post seemed to me.

~~~
kedi_xed
I learned a lot. I don't think the article is of a high quality, but it has
now broadened my viewpoint on Gandhi. I find it hard to believe in something
with no faults. And it seems that human nature shows that the more adamant
someone is in being pure and showing the world, the more a deeper darker side
they seem to have.

I hate it when people are portrayed as super human. Finding out about their
weird quirks takes them down a peg..gando is just a bloke...

------
aaronbrethorst
Apologies if this was posted recently. I couldn't find it in a cursory search
via searchyc.com:

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/apr/28/differe...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/apr/28/different-
gandhi/?pagination=false)

------
llambda
I think there's some valid criticism of the film "Gandhi" to be had. However,
an essay that insists on being flippant and glib through the repetitious use
of terms like "Sir Dickie" (to describe Sir David Attenborough, used on ten
occasions in the essay) is probably not it.

~~~
shrikant
Nitpick: you mean Sir Richard Attenborough, who's the director of the movie.
Sir David Attenborough is a naturalist.

------
joelburget
It's of course tempting for storytellers to make their characters one-
dimensional. In this case the makers of the movie decided to portray a
singularly good and humanitarian Gandhi. Usually we see purely good or purely
bad characters and know they are good or bad because the movie tells us. We
usually don't know why characters are bad, other than the fact that they're
fighting against the main character, so they must be.

The problem is this makes for boring characters. I love it when I see more
complex characters and their motivations. I know that's not exactly the Gandhi
the movie makers wanted to portray, but maybe it would have made for a better
story.

------
joelrunyon
I'm always amazed at people's desire to disparage those who have had a
positive impact on the world.

Ghandi obviously wasn't perfect, but he did plenty of good things.

It's easy to be a critic, but before you decide you need to criticize
something, ask yourself "what good have I done lately?"

Then shutup and get to work.

------
entangld
I don't see the point in attacking the character of people who have
accomplished great things.

What does a person's private life have to do with their struggle against a
government? Usually, not very much. It's just a more intellectual version of
gossip rags. Just trying to tear down historical celebrities.

------
Joakal
The Julian Assange Nobody Knows (2007) [0]

[0] <http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/>

------
asciilifeform
To the naysayers:

What would you have to find out about this man to stop worshipping him? That
he ate kittens?

Or are the facts simply irrelevant?

------
dman
Why is this on HN?

------
BuddhaSource
Lets keep it real,

There is no perfect man! A man leaves behind his persona of what he believed
or did. His karma is respected.

There is always a down side to everyone, as for Gandhi he failed as a father &
many more things. Accept it, this should not affect your believe for what he
did which no one else could.

I believe Steve Jobs for what he doing, I know he is not perfect.

lol my 2cents :P

------
ajaimk
One man's hero is another man's villain. Remember the "good stuff" about them,
follow said "good stuff" and forget the not so "good stuff".

If you don't have anything "good" to say, shut up and go about doing "good
stuff" yourself.

~~~
ajaimk
Do explain the down-votes when you make them.

