5 ms·

The problem with your argument is that the points against Gandhi do not just boil down to a 'bad action'. This is not about 'the worst thing he's ever done' i.e

The problem with your argument is that the points against Gandhi do not just boil down to a 'bad action'. This is not about 'the worst thing he's ever done' i.e. some statement, or action, or whatever - it was his outlook and actions which were consistently problematic. Gandhi's legacy is full of hypocritical issues like hyper nationalism, racism, his weird personal habit of sleeping with young girls and boys (and a ton of other weird sexual ideologies), his forbidding of his wife to receive 'Western Medicine' which led to her death but then of course his own consumption of such medicine when his life was at risk etc. etc.. The 'absurdity' I think is the degree to which these figures are hyper romanticized, and our inability to just see them for who they are. From: Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India, Joseph Lelyveld "Gandhi’s pejorative reference to nakedness is ironic considering that, as Mr. Lelyveld details, when he was in his 70s and close to leading India to independence, he encouraged his 17-year-old great-niece, Manu, to be naked during her “nightly cuddles” with him. After sacking several long-standing and loyal members of his 100-strong personal entourage who might disapprove of this part of his spiritual quest, Gandhi began sleeping naked with Manu and other young women. He told a woman on one occasion: “Despite my best efforts, the organ remained aroused. It was an altogether strange and shameful experience. Yet he could also be vicious to Manu, whom he on one occasion forced to walk through a thick jungle where sexual assaults had occurred in order for her to retrieve a pumice stone that he liked to use on his feet. When she returned in tears, Gandhi “cackled” with laughter at her and said: “If some ruffian had carried you off and you had met your death courageously, my heart would have danced with joy."" This is more than a 'drinking problem'.

Asooka 8y ago
The actions of those people are romanticised and from those actions is constructed a metaphorical figure that resembles, but does not equal the actual man. You need the man in order to have a story and you need the story in order to convey the message. The idealised romantic Gandhi is a tool with which to illustrate the moral, and an ideal for which to strive. Of course you shouldn't mirror Gandhi in all matters, but his idealised version is still a good example to follow. Were Gandhi's actions so abhorrent as to make it good to tear down the morals of social justice his activism taught us? Is he such a monster that you would destroy your own culture and society by denying them the good examples he set with the other part of his life? In a way you're cutting off your nose to spite someone else's face. What Gandhi did is done and whoever can claim damages that should be repaid can claim them via court. But the man is dead now and putting him on trial is a disservice to his memory and to our culture.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Were Gandhi's actions so abhorrent as to make it good to tear down the moral" Yes. Gandhi - during the height of his 'moral claims' - was a 70 year old man sleeping with a harem of young girls, urging them not to sleep with their husbands, got erections, possibly had intercourse, and then talked about it, and oppressed / moved aside anyone who didn't agree. The logic he would use to validate his sexual predation is byzantine, i.e. based on a 'spiritual experiment', and exactly the same as the insane logic that cult leaders use: "If I don't let Manu sleep with me, though I regard it as essential that she should," he announced, "wouldn't that be a sign of weakness in me?" [1] He's also on the record with hyper racist, xenophobic and Hindu nationalist rhetoric. Gandhi was a Hindu nationalist, of the same vein as most other nationalists - but he used 'non violent' populist rhetoric because he was an intellect and 'non violence' was going to be the only reproach that would work. Were Indians to be able to organize in terms of hard power during the Raj, they certainly would have i.e. Momar Gaddafi, Fidel Castro, even George Washington! India has a different culture and so their 'George Washington' was going to look a little different. But the issue is not Gandhi of course : the issue is the perception of Gandhi. Consider how much hagiography there is out there about Gandhi - even his Wikipedia page is not only bereft of his questionable behaviour, but it's turned upside down! Have a look [2] His Wiki entry states that 'his time in South Africa' was formative, and enabled him to develop his views on racism, Imperialism etc. etc. - when in fact, at the very same time, we have him on record with his most racist ideology: "Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of “indolence and nakedness,” and he campaigned relentlessly to prove to the British rulers that the Indian community in South Africa was superior to native black Africans." [3] So the 'common public record' is distorted to the point that it's totally upside down! This is because the 'common public record' is guarded by groups in the East who want to maintain his idol status, and groups in the West who want to embrace particularly his anti-Imperial (read: anti Western?) views. Gandhi did some very good things for Hindu India surely, and had some very positive and powerful things to day, but he was hugely flawed. Hey, George Washington fought for a war of 'independence' where 'all men should be free' ... and he had slaves! It is what it is. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/featu... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03/what-did-mahatma-gandhi-think-of-black-people/?utm_term=.8d166a7cb356 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pramit 8y ago
Re: 'This is more than a 'drinking problem'.' You are articulating what Indians would call a Sanghi's position. Sanghis, aka RSS sympathisers, have long tried to denigrate Gandhi on basis of his personal faults. Gandhi stands for one kind of India (inclusive India), RSS stands for other kind of India (exclusive India). RSS did little in India's freedom struggle. Its founding light Savarkar sought leniency from the British. RSS was on British side during 1942 Quit India. Thus, for 70 years RSS has been on a 're-educating' Indians mission. Step number 1 in their mission is to bring down Gandhi at any cost. That Gandhi inspired Indians towards the universal value of ahimsa (non violence) matters little to an organization modelled after the SS. That Gandhi inspired many leaders across the world matters little to an organization ironically geared to make the 'exceptional Indian'. OMG, I am so fed up of responding to 'Gandhi slept with. Gandhi was a ...' For once once, would someone please provide an alternative to Gandhi's universal value of 'ahimsa' and his ethos of constant personal improvement through observation and experiments. All I have got so far is Golwalkar and his 'Bunch of thoughts'.
bryanrasmussen 8y ago
Ok but when someone says his worst action it doesn't actually have to be a singular action it is an argument that what he did bad was mitigated by what he did good, at least where our consideration of him should be. I mean really you list all these awful things about him and I sarcastically think well there you go, the Brits should have kept India then. I guess I'm just continually amazed by all these good people wandering around, not reading particular books because the people who wrote them were lapsed in their moral graces, despising Gandi and MLK and so forth and I can't help but wonder why I've only met at best half a dozen good people in my life and the rest have been like me. It almost makes me think these paragons aren't all they themselves imply with their preaching.
- watwut 8y ago
  > I mean really you list all these awful things about him and I sarcastically think well there you go, the Brits should have kept India then. How exactly does that follow? That implication makes like zero sense. That implication is a problem, real world problem in both politics and history interpretation. That implication forces people to lie and to construct false history. It also seems like you are more interested in dividing world into goodly good and evily bad instead of being interested in historical truth. Why should it implies it is ok for Brits to continue with brutal regime that affects way more people then just Gandhi? It is not like colonial powers would kept power by being nice. There are other consequences of hero worship. For example, I have seen multiple times people to use Gandhi as authority. Gandhi said it, therefore it should be truth and trustworthy. Now of course, in addition to good and nice thinks he said and did crazy stuff. That implies you cant just blindly trust his judgement, you need to think for yourself. And there, ugly stuff suddenly matters. In addition, without ugly stuff you end up with history that makes little sense, that paints people who crossed Gandhi (or Churchill or Columbus) looking like complete incomprehensible idiots. How could they oppose such a great man? Well they could, because his flaws and dangers were as real as his achievements and affected lives of other people the same. Lastly, refusal to deal with uglier aspects of larger personalies honestly amounts to ideology where once you are powerful enough or successful enough in one thing, it is whatever goes. Once you succeeded, the expectations we place on other people don't apply to you. For example, once you are good writer, it is ok to lie or mistreat other people, nobody can criticize for that. Such ideologies lead to massive power abuses in real world.

Asooka 8y ago

The actions of those people are romanticised and from those actions is constructed a metaphorical figure that resembles, but does not equal the actual man. You need the man in order to have a story and you need the story in order to convey the message. The idealised romantic Gandhi is a tool with which to illustrate the moral, and an ideal for which to strive. Of course you shouldn't mirror Gandhi in all matters, but his idealised version is still a good example to follow. Were Gandhi's actions so abhorrent as to make it good to tear down the morals of social justice his activism taught us? Is he such a monster that you would destroy your own culture and society by denying them the good examples he set with the other part of his life? In a way you're cutting off your nose to spite someone else's face. What Gandhi did is done and whoever can claim damages that should be repaid can claim them via court. But the man is dead now and putting him on trial is a disservice to his memory and to our culture.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Were Gandhi's actions so abhorrent as to make it good to tear down the moral" Yes. Gandhi - during the height of his 'moral claims' - was a 70 year old man sleeping with a harem of young girls, urging them not to sleep with their husbands, got erections, possibly had intercourse, and then talked about it, and oppressed / moved aside anyone who didn't agree. The logic he would use to validate his sexual predation is byzantine, i.e. based on a 'spiritual experiment', and exactly the same as the insane logic that cult leaders use: "If I don't let Manu sleep with me, though I regard it as essential that she should," he announced, "wouldn't that be a sign of weakness in me?" [1] He's also on the record with hyper racist, xenophobic and Hindu nationalist rhetoric. Gandhi was a Hindu nationalist, of the same vein as most other nationalists - but he used 'non violent' populist rhetoric because he was an intellect and 'non violence' was going to be the only reproach that would work. Were Indians to be able to organize in terms of hard power during the Raj, they certainly would have i.e. Momar Gaddafi, Fidel Castro, even George Washington! India has a different culture and so their 'George Washington' was going to look a little different. But the issue is not Gandhi of course : the issue is the perception of Gandhi. Consider how much hagiography there is out there about Gandhi - even his Wikipedia page is not only bereft of his questionable behaviour, but it's turned upside down! Have a look [2] His Wiki entry states that 'his time in South Africa' was formative, and enabled him to develop his views on racism, Imperialism etc. etc. - when in fact, at the very same time, we have him on record with his most racist ideology: "Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of “indolence and nakedness,” and he campaigned relentlessly to prove to the British rulers that the Indian community in South Africa was superior to native black Africans." [3] So the 'common public record' is distorted to the point that it's totally upside down! This is because the 'common public record' is guarded by groups in the East who want to maintain his idol status, and groups in the West who want to embrace particularly his anti-Imperial (read: anti Western?) views. Gandhi did some very good things for Hindu India surely, and had some very positive and powerful things to day, but he was hugely flawed. Hey, George Washington fought for a war of 'independence' where 'all men should be free' ... and he had slaves! It is what it is. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/featu... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03/what-did-mahatma-gandhi-think-of-black-people/?utm_term=.8d166a7cb356 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pramit 8y ago

Re: 'This is more than a 'drinking problem'.' You are articulating what Indians would call a Sanghi's position. Sanghis, aka RSS sympathisers, have long tried to denigrate Gandhi on basis of his personal faults. Gandhi stands for one kind of India (inclusive India), RSS stands for other kind of India (exclusive India). RSS did little in India's freedom struggle. Its founding light Savarkar sought leniency from the British. RSS was on British side during 1942 Quit India. Thus, for 70 years RSS has been on a 're-educating' Indians mission. Step number 1 in their mission is to bring down Gandhi at any cost. That Gandhi inspired Indians towards the universal value of ahimsa (non violence) matters little to an organization modelled after the SS. That Gandhi inspired many leaders across the world matters little to an organization ironically geared to make the 'exceptional Indian'. OMG, I am so fed up of responding to 'Gandhi slept with. Gandhi was a ...' For once once, would someone please provide an alternative to Gandhi's universal value of 'ahimsa' and his ethos of constant personal improvement through observation and experiments. All I have got so far is Golwalkar and his 'Bunch of thoughts'.

bryanrasmussen 8y ago

Ok but when someone says his worst action it doesn't actually have to be a singular action it is an argument that what he did bad was mitigated by what he did good, at least where our consideration of him should be. I mean really you list all these awful things about him and I sarcastically think well there you go, the Brits should have kept India then. I guess I'm just continually amazed by all these good people wandering around, not reading particular books because the people who wrote them were lapsed in their moral graces, despising Gandi and MLK and so forth and I can't help but wonder why I've only met at best half a dozen good people in my life and the rest have been like me. It almost makes me think these paragons aren't all they themselves imply with their preaching.

watwut 8y ago
> I mean really you list all these awful things about him and I sarcastically think well there you go, the Brits should have kept India then. How exactly does that follow? That implication makes like zero sense. That implication is a problem, real world problem in both politics and history interpretation. That implication forces people to lie and to construct false history. It also seems like you are more interested in dividing world into goodly good and evily bad instead of being interested in historical truth. Why should it implies it is ok for Brits to continue with brutal regime that affects way more people then just Gandhi? It is not like colonial powers would kept power by being nice. There are other consequences of hero worship. For example, I have seen multiple times people to use Gandhi as authority. Gandhi said it, therefore it should be truth and trustworthy. Now of course, in addition to good and nice thinks he said and did crazy stuff. That implies you cant just blindly trust his judgement, you need to think for yourself. And there, ugly stuff suddenly matters. In addition, without ugly stuff you end up with history that makes little sense, that paints people who crossed Gandhi (or Churchill or Columbus) looking like complete incomprehensible idiots. How could they oppose such a great man? Well they could, because his flaws and dangers were as real as his achievements and affected lives of other people the same. Lastly, refusal to deal with uglier aspects of larger personalies honestly amounts to ideology where once you are powerful enough or successful enough in one thing, it is whatever goes. Once you succeeded, the expectations we place on other people don't apply to you. For example, once you are good writer, it is ok to lie or mistreat other people, nobody can criticize for that. Such ideologies lead to massive power abuses in real world.