Hitchens on Gandhi

batistuta

And it would have been great if he had concentrated on writing, rather than Politics.

Capt, Great posts on Our history. Things, which no textbooks taught me.

incitatus

Gandhi ‘wanted India to revert to a village-dominated and primitive “spiritual” society....."

I'm not sure why saying this is "slamming" Gandhi especially as it's true!
He was in favour of the panchayat system!!! His ideas may seem particularly naive in these more cynical days but what do you think J Lennon was singing about in 'Imagine'?

There's a lot of what's called the "cultural cringe" going on in developing countries these days.
The fact that Gandhi wanted a neutral country with values based on pacifism, freedom from want (rather than gross materialism),local democracy , freedom of worship and regard for the dignity of the individual may look simplistic and obvious now-but most of India-and the World are still waiting.

federica

This thread is better than a history lesson!

Dilliwala

And considering he was 56 days old at the time, any definitive pronouncements he makes on the subject wud require simultaneous consumption of the proverbial pinch of salt. But then I take everything he says with a pinch, him and anyone else who's THAT sure about anything they care to turn their attention too.
And now he's an expert on the Kashmir issue too? Gimme a break, I've had almost as many summer breaks there as a kid as him. I mention this becos in a TV interview he gave earlier this year, this is the only basis he provided (implicitly, not explicitly) for being an authority on Kashmir, now that he's turned his mind to the subject.
I also found it odd that he mentioned something on the lines of "I'm of Kashmiri origin, u can tell from my fair skin". Strange man.

There are very few families in Delhi, undivided Punjab, Western UP, undivided Bengal and parts of Assam without their own partition stories to tell, not necessarily including murder and death. I'm sure both Capt and I cud, altho we're a good deal younger than SR, as cud others here, no doubt. I don't think Rushdie, being one of midnight's children, has any special insights into partition (he just tells it better than the rest of us). Wounds take a long time to fill - 2-3 decades down memories were stil pretty fresh is what I can recall from my kidhood.

Dilliwala

Well, I'm not a Nehruvian - I hold him responsible for the Kashmir mess which carries on till today (Patel wud have sorted it out then and there), as well as the continuing problems with China today (well, Krishna Menon was responsible for that but Nehru was the boss and allowed KM to run the China policy, so Nehru gets the blame). He was an idealist, yes, out of place in a modern world, maybe, but to call him naive is uncharitable IMO.
For a fair assessment we need to look at his good side too - he played the lead role in ensuring that democracy and parliamentary traditions took roots in this nation. A small example - his worst detractors acknowledge that he did not indulge in mud-slinging in the way we have been seeing for 30 years now, no matter what he thought of his opponents privately. In fact I find it ironical that the BJP sometimes chastises today's Congressis by holding Nehru up as an example to them.

And India's position in the world in 1947 as a newly independent, newly partitioned nation cud be described as precarious to say the least. I think those of us born later cannot imagine the scale of the problems faced then, and which human being (he was) wud not have been tested to the extreme in that situation?
To prove my point, I'd like to offer the following imaginary scenario - if in 1947 instead of Nehru, Indira had been the PM (with Sanjay in tow) what wud have been the state of the nation today, presuming of course that her conduct of affairs wud have been the same as what we saw? I shudder.
BTW, it's a rhetorical question, I wasn't looking to start another long discussion.

shashank.aggarwal

I agree Dilliwala, Nehru deserves a name in the list of all time Indian heroes, simply because he stood by the democracy & helped it take root in those difficult times...

__________________
Travelogue - Around India
Random Reviews

Captain_Neel

I picked up this thread from another thread.

I completely agree with individious. Nehru saw the world the way he wanted the world to be; not the way the world really was.

Generally I like Hitchen's books and I read g.i.n.g. I felt he was underscoring things already known.

ananda2193

I must admit that I agree with alot Hitchens says per se, but I still think he's an insulting, arrogant wanker! I'm no fan for sure!

grikoo

Just got here from another thread, and yes, agree.....a wanker....but also agree with many of his points.

In particular, I think it's generally misunderstood how the dynamics of the 'non-violence' movement really played out. It's true, they supported non-violence (in general), but it was the threat of violence that made it functional, you could just as easily have called it the 'coercion movement'.

Excellent thread by the way, very informative.

PeakXV

Yes violence need not always have purely physical overtones. Mental abuse can often wear your adversary down with equal effect ..... Ironically Gandhi, by his 'nothing doings', managed to severly pummel most of those British Rajer's livers.

__________________
We shall not cease from exploration and at the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started ...and know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot

Don't go to India ~ Pre-trip Warnings & Misconceptions?

grikoo

Yes, and why the american activist movement is likely impotent to do anything these days.

In the 60's, when politicians were looking out their windows at a bunch of drug crazed radicals, they were scared to death and had to consider civil rights issues. Likewise, when the brits were surrounded by hoardes of angry Indians, they were scared!

Then came the vietnam anti-war movement, which by ideological necessity was actually non-violent. When the the two movements collided and became one, activism in america forever became irrelevant. Now protests are full of people in face paint with balloon hats. No politician is concerned over what's going to happen if they don't listen now.

It shows clearly the difference.

Gandhi was certainly an adept politician, capable of utilizing the masses very well. I suppose the approach is better than outright violence, but I wish humans could figure out a way to do things without coercion.

A couple hours later.......Actually, come to think of it I have used this exact tactic to get out violent situations before. You're right, it's often enough just to make the 'enemy' think about the consequences of violence, or the possibility that they might actually lose.

Champac

From my readings of Gandhi related material it seems he actually opposed those in Indian national congress who wanted to take advantage of the British predicament of having to fight the Nazi's in Europe and Japanese in far east. Gandhi did not support Subhas Chandra Bose who wanted to militarily fight British and for which he thought it was justifiable to align with the Japanese in Indo-Burma region.

Those Hindus who dislike Gandhi do it because they think he was too partial to the Muslims during the 1940's and the Muslims may dislike him because he was not impartial enough.

In either case the argument that Gandhi was opportunistic does not go well with his penchant for scrupulousness about the means to achieve an end even if on occasions it meant emotional blackmail of congress leaders like Nehru and Patel or the Indian public at large. Like any human being Gandhi had his faults which were mostly at personal level and with his interactions with his son Harilal but not the ones Mr.Hitchens quotes.

grikoo

Interesting that he'd want to align with the japanese.



Not sure that being opportunistic necessarily implies unscrupulous behaviour.......

crvlvr

who? Bose? or Gandhi?

crvlvr

Gandhi's main accomplishments is that he was instrumental in delivering RESULTS. Both in South Africa and India. Whether was was just at the right place at the right time (in that the same end would have been reched without his influence), or whether the countries would have been better off without his inflence is up for argument.

Also, many other leaders, like Martin Luther King , Nelson Mandela etc have been influenced by his work and used similar tactics effectively in their own way against oppression and unfairness. Today his work belongs, not just to India, but to the world.