Hitchens on Gandhi

nedhopkins · Jul 15th, 2007, 12:49

In his new book, God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens slams into Mahatma Gandhi. He writes that Gandhi ‘wanted India to revert to a village-dominated and primitive “spiritual” society, he made power-sharing with Muslims much harder, and he was quite prepared to make hypocritical use of violence when he thought it might suit him.’

Hitchins suggests that Pakistan would never have been created – that post-colonial India would have emerged with the borders of the Raj unchanged – but for Gandhi’s ‘talk of Hinduism and . . . the long ostentatious hours he spent in cultish practices and in tending his spinning wheel.’ Gandhi is therefore in large part responsible for the past six decades of Indo-Pak conflict.

Then, ‘at just the moment when what India most needed was a modern secular nationalist leader, it got a fakir and guru instead.’ Gandhi therefore retarded India’s economic development.

As for violence, ‘in 1941, when the Imperial Japanese Army had conquered Malaya and Burma and was on the frontiers of India itself . . . [Gandhi believed] that this spelled the end of the Raj [and] chose this moment to boycott the political process and issue his notorious [sic] call for the British to “Quit India” . . . [This amounted] to letting the Japanese imperialists do his fighting for him.’ In short, Gandhi was not opposed to violence; he merely recognized that he and his adherents were too weak to end the Raj by force.

There’s more, but these are the main points made by Hitchens, an ex-Trotskyite who is now an ubiquitous presence in the U S media and an avid supporter of George W Bush’s Iraq war.

As a lifelong admirer of the Mahatma, I find Hitchens' indictment offensive. I hope others do, too.

New-South-Welshman · Jul 15th, 2007, 13:19

Sounds like right-wing lunacy to me. I don't think people like Hitchens fully understand what Indians were going through back in the days of British rule. Everyone who has something against Gandhi, 99% of their arguments don't really stick. Now I'm gonna Google this Hitchens stooge.

New-South-Welshman · Jul 15th, 2007, 13:22

With further information on Hitchens I've just read, I probably support him on some of his issues such a anti-facism (even though he is pro-Bush?) and anti-monarchism. But still, with myself being a pretty big Indophile, I still don't like th guy.

batistuta · Jul 15th, 2007, 13:22

Hitchens is the latest in the list of atheists to take pot-shots at Organised Religion, joining Sam Harris (End of faith) and Richard Dawkins (God Delusion). I intend to read his book 'God is NOt Great'. I have read Sam Harris and he makes very good points.

Nick-H · Jul 15th, 2007, 14:10

Quote:

wanted India to revert to a village-dominated and primitive “spiritual” society

Revert? What else was it in the 1940s? Maybe he thinks that the high-tech industry, call centres and BPOs, etc were already flourishing then!

But I'm a duffer at history. I know that, whilst most admire Gandhi for his ideals and life, there are also many who see plenty to criticize in the practical application. Once someone becomes revered as a saint it is hard to talk about them as a human being again.

Cultish practices? well... each to their own; the practice of 'holy communion' is cultish in my book! To an extremist atheist they're all going to be cultish.

Japanese on the borders? Maybe... Gandhi must, for all his ideals, have been at least a part politician, and what politician does not look at the wider picture and see what is to their advantage

BTW... if any can tell me a 20th Century Indian History for Dummies book that would make me and my posts more informed, that would be nice.

It sounds here as if this guy is just boosting himself by attacking a world-famous great figure with little of substance.

BTW.... surely if there is one family that India would be better off without --- it is the Nehru clan?

capt_mahajan · Jul 16th, 2007, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick-H

BTW... if any can tell me a 20th Century Indian History for Dummies book that would make me and my posts more informed, that would be nice.

History of India, by Romilla Thapar(2/3 volumes, I think). I remember there being A History of early India, too. Same author.

Warning: small print.

But what I would do is take a British Library membership, and visit their 'India section'. Some interesting books there.

edwardseco · Jul 16th, 2007, 20:15

Alas Romilla Thapar who was thw Nehruite stapke for a couple of decades is now poorly reviewed by historians I believe. However, I would defer to Merchant who reads on topic far more than I..

Nick-H · Jul 16th, 2007, 20:43

Thanks

I've got an application for the British Council library right here!

capt_mahajan · Jul 16th, 2007, 21:09

Offtopic, but if you take family membership, you can take six books at a time for upto 3 weeks, not counting renewals.

1200 a year in Hyd, 2000 a year and you can take a DVD at at time too. (and they have a few classics like Roshomon, The Bicycle Thief, and even a couple of Marx brothers

)

Sama · Jul 16th, 2007, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by nedhopkins

Hitchins suggests that Pakistan would never have been created...Gandhi is therefore in large part responsible for the past six decades of Indo-Pak conflict.

On a train trip from Rameswaram I had an interesting conversation with a businessman from Andhra Pradesh who told me -- after I told him I had been to the Gandhi Museum in Madurai -- that "that there are as many Indians who hate Gandhi as there are Americans who hate Bush." I was very surprised by this statement and asked him why. The reason he gave me was exactly what is quoted from the book the OP writes about.

My train compartment mate told me that many Indians blame Gandhi for the Partition. Whether that's true or not, whether it was just his opinion, I don't know. The way he talked about Gandhi, it was obvious he was not a Gandhi fan. In any event, it was an interesting conversation and I took everything with a grain of salt.

blackbird · Jul 16th, 2007, 21:55

It seems to me to be grossly naive to hold one person responsible for the course of Indian history. MG tried so hard to win the trust of Muslims in a united India, but if he had also betrayed his Hindu roots he would have lost the trust of the Hindu majority. In the end his attempts to bridge the divide not only failed but led to his murder.

Besides, in Nehru, India did get "a modern secular nationalist leader", but somehow this didn't cause all those silly rural Hindus to see the light and become city-dwelling atheists. How easy does Hitchens think it would be for anyone to convert the Indian population to his world view?

capt_mahajan · Jul 16th, 2007, 21:56

IMHO, it is simplistic to blame mainly Gandhi on Partition.

Did he contribute to it? Yes. Was he the main contributor. I am personally doubtful on that one, there were so many factors, the Congress' desire to gain power, and Jinnah's, the British post world war, Churchill's dislike (stated, often in a derogatory way) of Indians, the British policy of divide and rule and a fear that the Indians would turn on them if the Partition was otherwise frictionless, the fact that Radcliffe was pushed to divide India.. (he was hardly a month in total in India, and he drew a line in the sand in secrecy), Nehru's affair with Edwina Mountbatten (more than an affair, his letters were on her bedside table when she died and Independent India's naval ships offered flowers at her burial at sea)... and quite a few factors more.

Blaming Gandhi alone, or even predominantly, is erroneous in my view.

Gandhi was responsible for quelling the Partition riots in Bengal to quite an extent. There is another school of thought which says that if there had been two Gandhi's, the Partition in the North would not have been so bloody.

Gandhi, however, was never popular with some right wing Hindu's long before Partition. People sometimes forget that there were five assassination attempts on him, excluding the successful one.

edit: cross posted with blackbird.

Sama · Jul 16th, 2007, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by capt_mahajan

Gandhi was responsible for quelling the Partition riots in Bengal to quite an extent. There is another school of thought which says that if there had been two Gandhi's, the Partition in the North would not have been so bloody.

Gandhi, however, was never popular with some right wing Hindu's long before Partition. People sometimes forget that there were five assassination attempts on him, excluding the successful one.

sorry for my ignorance, but why five? and why from right-wing?

can someone suggest a good book on this topic, i.e., neither one that bashes Gandhi nor makes him a saint, a balanced view.....

machadinha · Jul 16th, 2007, 22:21

I thought he was disliked in those quarters precisely because of his stance of appeasement towards India's Muslims, and his efforts to the very last moment to prevent Partition.

But then what do I know. If so, this Mr. Hitchens's approach seems to be kind of topsy-turvy (?)

PeakXV · Jul 16th, 2007, 22:56

The following quote from "Freedom at Midnight" (Collins/Lapierre pages 199-200) hints of Mountbatten's thought process to distribute the responsibility of his plan:

Quote:

Suddenly as he spoke, a burst of inspiration stuck him. The newspapers had christened the plan the "Mountbatten Plan," he said, but they should have called it the "Gandhi Plan." It was Gandhi, Mountbatten declared, who had suggested to him all the ingredients. The Mahatma looked at him perplexed.

Yes, Mountbatten continued, Gandhi had told him to leave the choice to the Indian people and this plan did. It was the provincial, popularly elected assemblies which could decide India's future. Each province's assembly would vote on whether it wished to join India or Pakistan. Gandhi had urged the British to quit India as soon as possible, and that was what they were going to do.

"If by some miracle the assemblies vote for unity," Mountbatten told Gandhi, "you have what you want. If they don't agree, I'm sure you don't want us to oppose their decision by force of arms."

Jul 15th, 2007, 12:49	#1
nedhopkins Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: California Posts: 231	Hitchens on Gandhi In his new book, God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens slams into Mahatma Gandhi. He writes that Gandhi ‘wanted India to revert to a village-dominated and primitive “spiritual” society, he made power-sharing with Muslims much harder, and he was quite prepared to make hypocritical use of violence when he thought it might suit him.’ Hitchins suggests that Pakistan would never have been created – that post-colonial India would have emerged with the borders of the Raj unchanged – but for Gandhi’s ‘talk of Hinduism and . . . the long ostentatious hours he spent in cultish practices and in tending his spinning wheel.’ Gandhi is therefore in large part responsible for the past six decades of Indo-Pak conflict. Then, ‘at just the moment when what India most needed was a modern secular nationalist leader, it got a fakir and guru instead.’ Gandhi therefore retarded India’s economic development. As for violence, ‘in 1941, when the Imperial Japanese Army had conquered Malaya and Burma and was on the frontiers of India itself . . . [Gandhi believed] that this spelled the end of the Raj [and] chose this moment to boycott the political process and issue his notorious [sic] call for the British to “Quit India” . . . [This amounted] to letting the Japanese imperialists do his fighting for him.’ In short, Gandhi was not opposed to violence; he merely recognized that he and his adherents were too weak to end the Raj by force. There’s more, but these are the main points made by Hitchens, an ex-Trotskyite who is now an ubiquitous presence in the U S media and an avid supporter of George W Bush’s Iraq war. As a lifelong admirer of the Mahatma, I find Hitchens' indictment offensive. I hope others do, too.

Jul 15th, 2007, 13:19	#2
New-South-Welshman Drunk Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Sydney, NSW Posts: 1,293	Sounds like right-wing lunacy to me. I don't think people like Hitchens fully understand what Indians were going through back in the days of British rule. Everyone who has something against Gandhi, 99% of their arguments don't really stick. Now I'm gonna Google this Hitchens stooge. __________________ Mr. Burns "Non-violence never solved anything!"

Jul 16th, 2007, 22:21	#14
machadinha Not Your Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: yörp Posts: 9,172	I thought he was disliked in those quarters precisely because of his stance of appeasement towards India's Muslims, and his efforts to the very last moment to prevent Partition. But then what do I know. If so, this Mr. Hitchens's approach seems to be kind of topsy-turvy (?) __________________ Reading tips, all picked up at IndiaMike : INDAX's A Comprehensive Guide To India / Dinoj Surendran's Desi Humor / ITHVC on Culture Shock & Travel Health / JetLag Travel Guides For the Undiscerning Traveller / India Travel Links

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gandhi	nadreg	Books, Music, and Movies	10	May 26th, 2006 08:45
Gandhi dynasty	knight22	Chai and Chat	4	Oct 12th, 2004 08:27
Gandhi Film	Bryan	Books, Music, and Movies	9	Aug 30th, 2003 12:59
Did Gandhi fail ?	steven_ber	Chai and Chat	3	May 27th, 2003 03:19

Jul 15th, 2007, 13:22	#3
New-South-Welshman Drunk Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Sydney, NSW Posts: 1,293	With further information on Hitchens I've just read, I probably support him on some of his issues such a anti-facism (even though he is pro-Bush?) and anti-monarchism. But still, with myself being a pretty big Indophile, I still don't like th guy.

Jul 15th, 2007, 13:22	#4
batistuta Neti-Neti Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bangalore Posts: 1,661	Hitchens is the latest in the list of atheists to take pot-shots at Organised Religion, joining Sam Harris (End of faith) and Richard Dawkins (God Delusion). I intend to read his book 'God is NOt Great'. I have read Sam Harris and he makes very good points.

Jul 16th, 2007, 20:15	#7
edwardseco Maha Guru Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Land that shakes and bakes. Posts: 3,445	Alas Romilla Thapar who was thw Nehruite stapke for a couple of decades is now poorly reviewed by historians I believe. However, I would defer to Merchant who reads on topic far more than I..

Jul 16th, 2007, 20:43	#8
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 24,220	Thanks I've got an application for the British Council library right here!

Jul 16th, 2007, 21:09	#9
capt_mahajan (in charge of navel affairs) Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: India Posts: 8,765	Offtopic, but if you take family membership, you can take six books at a time for upto 3 weeks, not counting renewals. 1200 a year in Hyd, 2000 a year and you can take a DVD at at time too. (and they have a few classics like Roshomon, The Bicycle Thief, and even a couple of Marx brothers )

Jul 16th, 2007, 21:55	#11
blackbird Jai Maa Tarini Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Bristol, England Posts: 358	It seems to me to be grossly naive to hold one person responsible for the course of Indian history. MG tried so hard to win the trust of Muslims in a united India, but if he had also betrayed his Hindu roots he would have lost the trust of the Hindu majority. In the end his attempts to bridge the divide not only failed but led to his murder. Besides, in Nehru, India did get "a modern secular nationalist leader", but somehow this didn't cause all those silly rural Hindus to see the light and become city-dwelling atheists. How easy does Hitchens think it would be for anyone to convert the Indian population to his world view?

Jul 16th, 2007, 21:56	#12
capt_mahajan (in charge of navel affairs) Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: India Posts: 8,765	IMHO, it is simplistic to blame mainly Gandhi on Partition. Did he contribute to it? Yes. Was he the main contributor. I am personally doubtful on that one, there were so many factors, the Congress' desire to gain power, and Jinnah's, the British post world war, Churchill's dislike (stated, often in a derogatory way) of Indians, the British policy of divide and rule and a fear that the Indians would turn on them if the Partition was otherwise frictionless, the fact that Radcliffe was pushed to divide India.. (he was hardly a month in total in India, and he drew a line in the sand in secrecy), Nehru's affair with Edwina Mountbatten (more than an affair, his letters were on her bedside table when she died and Independent India's naval ships offered flowers at her burial at sea)... and quite a few factors more. Blaming Gandhi alone, or even predominantly, is erroneous in my view. Gandhi was responsible for quelling the Partition riots in Bengal to quite an extent. There is another school of thought which says that if there had been two Gandhi's, the Partition in the North would not have been so bloody. Gandhi, however, was never popular with some right wing Hindu's long before Partition. People sometimes forget that there were five assassination attempts on him, excluding the successful one. edit: cross posted with blackbird.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password