How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
In the weekend WSJ, book reviewer Andrew Roberts makes some pretty dramatic -- controversial? --statements about Gandhi in his review of Joseph Lelyveld's Great Soul.
Joseph Lelyveld has written a generally admiring book about Mohandas Gandhi, the man credited with leading India to independence from Britain in 1947. Yet "Great Soul" also obligingly gives readers more than enough information to discern that he was a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist—one who was often downright cruel to those around him. Gandhi was therefore the archetypal 20th-century progressive intellectual, professing his love for mankind as a concept while actually despising people as individuals.
Later, Roberts writes:
Although Gandhi's nonviolence made him an icon to the American civil-rights movement, Mr. Lelyveld shows how implacably racist he was toward the blacks of South Africa. "We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs," 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."
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
Yes, Gandhi is one of the many historical figures idolized by the postmodern west. For some reason many people seem to think that having "eastern spirituality" makes one a kind of saint like figure. We know that this isn't the case, and people like Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are anything but saints.
Despite all that I do have a modicum of respect for the guy, if only due to his adherence to political non-violent resistance as a way of opposing injustice. For domestic matters, I have no doubt many lives were saved by this.
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
Abdiel: ...
Despite all that I do have a modicum of respect for the guy, if only due to his adherence to political non-violent resistance as a way of opposing injustice. For domestic matters, I have no doubt many lives were saved by this.
This review was eye-opening in more than one way. This is what Roberts said about his "political non-violent resistance" (which in principle, I agree, Abdiel, is the way to go):
Mar '11
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
One of the problems I have with Gandhi and some of his followers is also one I have with some Irish. During WWII they argued against fighting the Nazis in order to punish England. Some even worked with the Nazis, providing them information about British installations.
Mar '11
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
I think the myth of Gandhi's erm... enlightenment and moral clarity comes mainly from grade school curriculum and Hollywood. Certainly something school-boards should look into changing. It seems to me that academic are pretty much universally in agreement that Gandhi was a terrible person.
Dec '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
I am legitimately shocked by this. I can't wait to read the review and the book. Thanks for posting Ursula. Ghandi's name is one that you simply associate with goodness and peace and justice if you went to public schools like I did growing up. If what Roberts is asserting is true, it is yet another example of the white-washing of history the Left does on a consistent basis.
But it is also an example of the "not doing your homework" that many of us on the Right (myself absolutely included) are guilty of. We accept too many of the Left's arguments and interpretations.
May '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
Overrated, protectionist, non-economics knowing, Hindu fanatic
Edited on Mar 27, 2011 at 1:11pmJul '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
For some odd reason, I've always found it hard to respect a guy who wore diapers and made a habit of administering enemas to his young female entourage.
Jun '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
Sounds like a frat party.
Jul '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
Even a study of his public life uncovers little saintliness. At the cusp of Indian independence, the issue of East and West Pakistan, seeking to be partitioned out from India as Muslim states, drove Ghandi to support going to war to keep them a part of India. He relented only when it became clear that he did not quite have the votes in the Indian Congress to carry it through. Definitely a life worth knowing for many reasons.
Nov '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
A diapered megalomaniac. A sociopath in prophetic drag. Those who would canonize him use him as mirror to their own preening moral vanity; actually scrutinizing his record would thus serve no purpose. At most, people on the left may, if compelled, admit he had feet of clay. That is an insult to clay.
Dec '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
Excellent point. Admittedly, the only thing I know about Ghandi is through the movie and we all know how accurate the cinema is. Question - is India better or worse off over the long term by seeking independence from the U.K.? It seemed to force the issue of a seperate state and now they have a nuclear armed Pakistan at their doorstep and constant military disputes over territory. Many postive things occured and they now have a thriving economy, yet Pakistan seems to be an unintended consequence.
Jun '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
Johannes Allert
Excellent point. Admittedly, the only thing I know about Ghandi is through the movie and we all know how accurate the cinema is. · Mar 27 at 2:17pm
Richard Attenborough, the director of the award-winning film, was encouraged by some Hindus to represent Gandhi as a bright point of light. To which Attenborough responded, "I'm not making a movie about bloody Tinkerbell!"
It sounds as though this new book will put Gandhi in a more accurate light...as it were, with all his flaws, questionable or horrendous positions, peccadilloes, or perversions.
Dec '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
Truman said it best. The only thing new is the history we have not read. Thanks!
Jul '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
The break up of the British Empire was largely an American project, so we own a piece of any related breakage. The Saudi's have strongly encouraged our alliance with Pakistan over the years, and it has always been a sore point with India. In fact, it is my discussions with Indian friends that first led me to see how much American policy has been driven by Muslim appeasement since WWII. Indians have faced down jihad for centuries, they have few illusions about the enemy.
The India that achieved independence had just fought with honor and potency in WWII and took pride in emerging as a major, multiethnic nation. The Pakistans (now Pakistan and Bangladesh), on the other hand, drove their non-Muslim populations out while encouraging Indian Muslims and others to commit acts of terror against non-Muslim Indians.
Indian history is bewilderingly rich and complex, but has sudden relevance as America comes into conflict with the same enemies. And Sharia is friend to no free man.
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
R.J. Moeller: I am legitimately shocked by this. I can't wait to read the review and the book. Thanks for posting Ursula. Ghandi's name is one that you simply associate with goodness and peace and justice if you went to public schools like I did growing up. If what Roberts is asserting is true, it is yet another example of the white-washing of history the Left does on a consistent basis.
But it is also an example of the "not doing your homework" that many of us on the Right (myself absolutely included) are guilty of. We accept too many of the Left's arguments and interpretations.
I had the exact same reaction as you, RJ. Well said.
Jan '11
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
It is really interesting to compare the WSJ review of this book and the New York Times review. It is like the authors are reviewing to different books which illustrates the point many people are making on here about how elites will whitewash their heroes as best as possible.
Nov '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
I'm quite willing to allow that Gandhi was deeply flawed, but I'm not sure this was such a bad idea. Is the world so well served by this example of religious separatism?
Jan '11
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
As I read this Richard Grenier's 1983 review of the film for Commentary came to mind. It's can be found here: http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
It was my introduction to the non-saintly side of the man.
Jan '11
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
Sorry, here's the link:
http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
Jun '10
Re: How Good, Exactly, was Gandhi?
The Indians you were talking to might just have been anti-American, you know. Absurd to think we own this.
India chose the Soviet Union after partition and the Pakistanis were thrown into our camp. It was a clear decision made because Congress Party was leftist. I understand really: they had a lot of help from the Soviets because the Soviets liked fomenting unrest everywhere -- and they especially went after any proxies who could damage the Brits. (America hadn't become the really bad guys yet.)
Some of the Muslim countries, especially Turkey, were tremendously valuable during the Cold War. Pakistan, too, became a bulwark against the Soviets.