4 ms·

I stopped reading at this point: > ...when Gandhi's wife lay dying of pneumonia and British doctors > insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her, Ga

I stopped reading at this point: > ...when Gandhi's wife lay dying of pneumonia and British doctors > insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her, Gandhi refused to > have this alien medicine injected in her body and simply let her die. True as far as it goes, but a near-slanderous distortion of what actually happened: To those who tried to bolster her sagging morale saying "You will get better soon," Kasturba would respond, "No, my time is up." Shortly after seven that evening, Devdas took Mohandas and the doctors aside. In what he would later describe as "the sweetest of all wrangles I ever had with my father," he pleaded fiercely that Ba be given the life saving medicine, even though the doctors told him her condition was beyond help. It was Mohandas, after learning that the penicillin had to be administered by injection every four to six hours, who finally persuaded his youngest son to give up the idea. "Why do you want to prolong your mother's agonies after all the suffering she has been through?" Gandhi asked. Then he said, "You can't cure her now, no matter what miracle drug you may muster. But if you insist, I will not stand in your way. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasturba_Gandhi) The OP's calumny is reminiscent of an earlier incident where Kasturba was ill, and doctors insisted that she needed to eat beef to get better. They asked his permission, and he said that he would not grant it, but that if she was in a position to indicate her wishes, she could choose for herself. http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhicomesalive/chap01.htm http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhicomesalive/chap01.htm If there is something actually interesting and historically verifiable elsewhere in this apparent hit job of an essay, I'd be grateful for a pointer, though. What is it with the recent campaign to slam Gandhi? (http://www.metafilter.com/101933/We-believe-as-much-in-the-purity-of-races-as-we-think-they-do http://www.metafilter.com/101933/We-believe-as-much-in-the-p...)

techiferous 16y ago
"What is it with the recent campaign to slam Gandhi?" Perhaps it's that, even with his flaws, Gandhi raises the bar really high. He reminds us that we have much more internal power and potential than we want to admit to ourselves and that we have a responsibility to others.
akkartik 16y ago
I'm not sure what version to trust on that particular story[1], but read on. It's more an attack on the movie (and an establishment's propaganda) than on the man. I'm Indian, and I grew up steeped in the legend of Gandhi. I've always had a close identification with him. His birthday is adjacent to mine, and I used to wear these round glasses as an adolescent. I say these things to show that I should dislike this essay. And yet I find myself unable to. It's a good, balanced, exquisitely written essay. And having read it and pondered it and enjoyed it I find my opinion of Gandhi hasn't materially changed. He had the hustle of an entrepreneur. "Gandhi was erratic, irrational, tyrannical, obstinate. He sometimes verged on lunacy. He believed in a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant. He worshipped cows. But I will say this: he was brave. He feared no one." Even the attack on Hinduism is interesting (I assume that's the part http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2409364 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2409364 referred to as looney-land. I call it 'things you can't say'). It's cathartic to find that there's as much to criticize about Hinduism as about any of the other major religions, something I hadn't quite focused on until now. Perhaps I'm losing my roots. --- [1] http://www.hark.com/clips/fcxrvdvphc-who-cares http://www.hark.com/clips/fcxrvdvphc-who-cares, http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0068895 http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0068895
- warrenwilkinson 16y ago
  I'm glad you said it first. This is a REALLY well written essay. The writer obviously knows something about Ghandi. He has clearly read much of the man's letters, knows who he associated with, has read several biographies, and seems to know the time period like the back of his hand. And yet that doesn't seem to matter.
  - sid6376 16y ago
    I will politely disagree, from his repeated mention of V.S.Naipaul and also his suggestion to read his books at the end, it seems the writer had a conviction and then just decided to justify himeslf by reading and quoting material which suited his point of view. The article throughout seemed written by a british apologist and if someone was to form an opinion of the british rule in india entirely upon this article it would seem that british committed no atrocities at all on India post the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919 due to the deep guilt that the incident inflicted on them. So i am uncomfortable accepting the fact that this article was written by a well-reasoned individual.

techiferous 16y ago

"What is it with the recent campaign to slam Gandhi?" Perhaps it's that, even with his flaws, Gandhi raises the bar really high. He reminds us that we have much more internal power and potential than we want to admit to ourselves and that we have a responsibility to others.

akkartik 16y ago

I'm not sure what version to trust on that particular story[1], but read on. It's more an attack on the movie (and an establishment's propaganda) than on the man. I'm Indian, and I grew up steeped in the legend of Gandhi. I've always had a close identification with him. His birthday is adjacent to mine, and I used to wear these round glasses as an adolescent. I say these things to show that I should dislike this essay. And yet I find myself unable to. It's a good, balanced, exquisitely written essay. And having read it and pondered it and enjoyed it I find my opinion of Gandhi hasn't materially changed. He had the hustle of an entrepreneur. "Gandhi was erratic, irrational, tyrannical, obstinate. He sometimes verged on lunacy. He believed in a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant. He worshipped cows. But I will say this: he was brave. He feared no one." Even the attack on Hinduism is interesting (I assume that's the part http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2409364 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2409364 referred to as looney-land. I call it 'things you can't say'). It's cathartic to find that there's as much to criticize about Hinduism as about any of the other major religions, something I hadn't quite focused on until now. Perhaps I'm losing my roots. --- [1] http://www.hark.com/clips/fcxrvdvphc-who-cares http://www.hark.com/clips/fcxrvdvphc-who-cares, http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0068895 http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0068895

warrenwilkinson 16y ago
I'm glad you said it first. This is a REALLY well written essay. The writer obviously knows something about Ghandi. He has clearly read much of the man's letters, knows who he associated with, has read several biographies, and seems to know the time period like the back of his hand. And yet that doesn't seem to matter.
- sid6376 16y ago
  I will politely disagree, from his repeated mention of V.S.Naipaul and also his suggestion to read his books at the end, it seems the writer had a conviction and then just decided to justify himeslf by reading and quoting material which suited his point of view. The article throughout seemed written by a british apologist and if someone was to form an opinion of the british rule in india entirely upon this article it would seem that british committed no atrocities at all on India post the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919 due to the deep guilt that the incident inflicted on them. So i am uncomfortable accepting the fact that this article was written by a well-reasoned individual.