Hitchens on Gandhi

dzibead

A few years ago, Hitchens wrote a book trashing Mother Theresa as well. One of his favorite M.O.s is to pull down widely-revered figures and to take a contrarian view. Although the overall effect can come off as somewhat adolescent, and I often grit my teeth as I'm reading his stuff, he does sometimes point out a few the-emperor's-wearing-no-clothes-type things that need to be said. In addition to attacking the "sacred cows", so to speak, like Gandhi and Mother Theresa (and I didn't pick the figure of speech because of the India connection!) he's also taken on people like Henry Kissinger, who are worthy of condemnation, IMHO.

invidious

I can't wait for the movie "Gandhi, My Father" to release.
Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymj0sC_1XtY

dzibead

That looks fantastic!

invidious

I had seen the play Gandhi Vs. Gandhi many years ago. I think the movie is based on the play.

federica

Sounds really good. After watching Attenboroughs Gandhi movie for the first time I really admired Gandhi. Then I read a biography and was deeply shocked about the relationship with his son. At that time I was a (at least a little bit rebellious)teenager and saw it very much from the view of the son. But he was a human being, and we are all not perfect.

Someone mentioned it here on IM already (can't quote the source, but remember): if somebody does 80% good things in his life and only 20% bad things, that doesn't make him a "bad person"...

But I feel people like Hitchens try to put everyone who is not 100% perfect in this "what a bad person"-corner, without any differentiation. Like: he is not a saint = actually he is a bad person. Sorry, there are many colours between black and white...

Regarding Gandhi was responsible for the partition: Then I don't understand why he is not highly estimated in Pakistan... if he would have been the one who was responsible, he should be a hero there...

capt_mahajan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt...hatm a_Gandhi

Warning: there are different versions of this, but overall, a decent precis'. I would not trust wiki's interpretation here though.


Why the right wing? Long story, but many Hindu's were angered by Gandhi's even handed, even (perceived) appeasing, stance towards Muslims a couple of decades before partition. The British added fat to the fire, (divide and rule, remember) with legislative and operational decisions.

As the Quit India movement gathered steam, this feeling was more pronounced. The Muslims, led by Jinnah (dying of cancer, which was kept a secret) felt more and more that they would be swamped by a Hindu majority in independent India. The Congress was unwilling to be an equal partner, politically, with the Muslim League. The British just wanted to get away in one piece.

The fact that the Hindu Mahasabha (a right wing Hindu organisation led by Savarkar out of Poona), the Muslim League and the Communists in India did not support the Quit India movement added another dimension to all this.

Finally, it fell on Gandhi to acqueise to Partition. (Critics say he suggested it). Whatever, it was the final straw, and another (this time) successful assassination attempt.

Not that it was a widespread conspiracty, but sweets were distributed in parts of Pune on his death. Luminary Hindu leaders like Veer Savarkar from the Hindu Mahasabha were arrested and released for lack of evidence. (both the main accused, Godse and Apte, were known to him, though, and used to visit him) The RSS/Jana Sangh/BJP evolved politically over the years out of this Hindu right wing, each with links to the other. (edit: On re-reading, it seems that this implies a widespread assassination conspiracy through some of these organisations. To repeat, it was not, though the RSS and Jan Sangh at least, were tainted by it politically.)

As for the question about a definitive book, I am afraid, that like most of History, one has to read all versions and draw one's own conclusions. All the movies mentioned here are seriously flawed or at least one sided. IMHO.

__________________
.

The cynic must remember that he is a spy (Epitectus)
Indiamike moderating team ..ich bin ein oneliner

capt_mahajan

I would only add that the bloodshed during Partition was, IMHO, as much a result of British actions, intended and innocent, as it was the result of Hindu and Muslim bloodlust.

The line in the sand I previously mentioned, the arbitrary and sudden displacement of millions, the lack of clarity on a day to day basis (rumours flew thick and fast with no official clarification).... all meant that a confused mass of people, fearful for their lives and their property, unsure about their survival, took to violence. Who knows if this added to Godse's anger and despair?

machadinha

I'd written something similar before then deleted it Capt. But I think (and far from uniquely so) the British hurry to get rid of its colony played no small part in it yes, together with long-brewing internal strife and oppositions, which partly suited them very well, but can certainly not be explained in those terms alone. The (widely) varying factions in the liberation movement of the previous, what, 200 years or so are also too easily overlooked in this I think.

Under the circumstances one wonders how the outcome might have been any different, Gandhi or no Gandhi. One would wish they would have, of course. (I also resent the suggestion above that all Pakistanis would have felt Partition was a great idea btw. I know this is what Jinnah wanted, but he also had his reasons as you indicated, and I doubt if all Muslims at the time welcomed these developments and the subsequent slaughter any more than their Hindu counterparts.) As for Gandhi himself, he's never been a saint to me and I'm not surprised if some fault could be found with him. That's the thing with becoming a public figure, it usually makes you easier to scrutinize. I was distractedly watching something on TV again about some celeb's gall bladder problems or whatever & counted myself lucky not to be in that position.

__________________
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

crvlvr

I doubt is anyone who supports the invasion of Iraq can even begin to understand Gandhism. Hitchens appears to be an idiot on some topics. A war to be proud of

capt_mahajan

There is no doubt in my mind that the Partition would have been much more bloody if there had been no Gandhi. Apart from Bengal, which he almost singlehandedly brought back from the brink, he was a moral force and a tremendous leader.

Most Muslims, like most Hindu's, probably wanted peace more than they wanted Partition, and did not want to be displaced in the way many were. And the fact that so many stayed behind meant that they had some faith in their security.

Gandhi, IMHO wasn't a saint by any stretch of the imagination. But for a single man to accomplish what he did, and to put forward a new non violent means of doing so, shows more guts than many people credit him with.

machadinha

LOL, good find CRV.

"I once tried to calculate how long the post-Cold War liberal Utopia had actually lasted." Er, what post-Cold War liberal Utopia? Have I missed something?

capt_mahajan

To clarify just one thing.. the mental image some will have of the violence in Partition is of Hindu vs Muslim bloodshed.

Actually, and without getting into details, in the North, it was often Muslim vs Sikh.

machadinha

Another thing too easily overlooked yes.

Yes, I can find fault with some of his pacifist tactics, but then it shouldn't be another religion anyhow. He certainly remains an inspiration in that field alone. (Not to mention his more daily political entanglements and struggles, I think "the West" tends to see it too abstractly in that sense.)

YG his autobiography is recommended by many, haven't read it. Hardly objective of course, but may be a good part of any study on it.

It's here for free: An Autobiography or The Story of my Experiments with Truth.

capt_mahajan

My Experiments With Truth, as I recall, is not overtly political. I read it years ago, and the impression I still have is it details more his thinking than his actions.

machadinha

Yeh, I'll be sure to pick up that multi-volume tome on contemporary Indian history you mentioned above on my next visit I've still to finish Basham for that matter

I didn't know Lapierre was involved with that famous book also mentioned above btw, should read it I guess (I found his City of Joy if it's the same author far more insightful than I'd expected, touches on the subject too I think). I thought Rushdie's Midnight's Children (likewise unfinished ) gives a good feeling for the horrors and details of Partition, but, well, in a subtler novelesque sort of way.