Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
While debating Anna Hazare's violent assaults on ADULTS in his village (in any event no one is supposed to beat children with army belts, either), on FB, one defence (for Anna) provided to me was that Gandhi himself indulged in criminal acts. The example offered in this regard was of his alleged "exploitation" of women. I was given this link.
Apparently this book Gandhi: Naked Ambition provides insights into Gandhi's hidden life, which is only now beginning to surface. I find this whole thing very reprehensible, very un-Gandhian. Gandhi had clearly wildly off-track somewhere down the line. How in heavens name is it possible to justify such actions? Prima facie, there is evidence of his exploitation of young girls. The key immediate question I have, though, is did Gandhi break any law? Did he commit any crime?
Relationship (?) with a person possibly below 18?
Sushila Nayar, the attractive sister of Gandhi's secretary, also his personal physician, attended Gandhi from girlhood. She used to sleep and bathe with Gandhi. When challenged, he explained how he ensured decency was not offended. "While she is bathing I keep my eyes tightly shut," he said, "I do not know … whether she bathes naked or with her underwear on. I can tell from the sound that she uses soap."
Relationship (?) with an 18 year old
While in Bengal to see what comfort he could offer in times of inter-communal violence in the run-up to independence, Gandhi called for his 18-year-old grandniece Manu to join him – and sleep with him. "We both may be killed by the Muslims," he told her, "and must put our purity to the ultimate test, so that we know that we are offering the purest of sacrifices, and we should now both start sleeping naked."
This is a research post. Please provide information. I'll also keep adding information in due course, time permitting.
I've received numerous comments on FB but have no time to respond to them. It seems people are mixing up the specific actions of the Congress goverment with my comments about Hazare's method and attitude.
Let me clarify what I'm saying, and what I'm NOT saying.
First, I'm NOT commenting on the precise nature of Hazare's arrest and what is going on. I don't have detailed knowledge of such things, and don't have time to follow the details. What I have said is roughly this – that Hazare can't keep threatening to break the law and yet expect the government to do nothing. That would destroy India totally. The government cannot tolerate its laws being broken. And yes, Anna has threatened to break the law, apart from burning the lokpal bill and asking people to fill jails.
The precise actions a government initiates in response to such threats to public safety and order, are left in the law to the local administration. No one can tell a district magistrate what to do in such circumstances (although I know that some district magistrates may be malleable and listen to polticians – but in the National Academy we taught how DMs must exercise THEIR judgement on such matters, since they have the local knowledge).
The DM is required to exercise his (or her) power with due diligence, care, and accountability. So whether Hazare is now in Tihar or elsewhere, that's not something I'm commenting on, since I assume the law is being followed. Only if they law is broken by the local administration can one comment further on this.
Second, and in this is my main point, I'm saying that Hazare is an anarchist even though he claims a "democratic right" to break the law. Effectively he is intent on overthrowing an elected government for not accepting his version of the Lokpal bill. He refuses to use the constitutionally legitimate method, of getting elected and changing the laws. He is not a 100% anarchist, since then he would not even want any law, but pretty close to being an anarchist.
Third, I'm saying that Hazare is NOT a Gandhian. He is a pretend Gandhian.
Gandhi would NEVER have done what Hazare is doing. I have already provided SUFFICIENT evidence about this matter from Gandhi's own writings in the past (e.g. Research into Gandhi’s views on suicide and fasting #2 and Research into Gandhi’s views on suicide and fasting #3).
But also, after the Poona Confernce of 1932, Gandhi realised that fasting CAN'T BE A VALID method to use in any constitutional form of government. The evidence emerged recently for this view of Gandhi: If Hazare disputes this, I CHALLENGE him to cite Gandhi to justify his actions.
Let me reproduce key sections from this important article (thanks to Karthik for pointing this out)
“After Gandhiji was released and we had the Poona Conference over which M.S. Aney, who was then the Acting President of the Congress, presided, I tried to meet Gandhiji but his nephew prevented me from meeting him because he knew my views to which I shall refer presently. Anyway, Aney was good enough to invite me to that meeting of Congressmen….“I went up to Gandhiji at the end of the meeting and I said, ‘I am trying to meet you and your nephew is preventing me from meeting you.' He said, ‘No, no, nobody can do that. You come and see me.' I would like to mention that in my speech I had said, ‘I do not know what card Gandhiji had up his sleeve.' I was amused to find that some people thought this to be disrespectful because Gandhiji never played cards.“When I went to him the next day, he showed me the letter which he had prepared for being dispatched to the Viceroy. In the letter, he had mentioned that satyagraha must be recognised as a constitutional right. So, I said to Gandhiji with utmost respect, ‘Several views have been expressed for framing our Constitution. Tomorrow, when India is free, would you say that satyagraha is a constitutional right and write it into the Constitution. And, if we do, what does it mean? It means that anybody can break the law with impunity and nothing could be done. Actually, it would be contrary to your own ideas. Satyagraha, you say, means disobeying authority and facing the consequences. Now, if satyagraha is a constitutional right and it is permitted, what are the consequences to face?' It would be said to the credit of the great man that he started thinking and he said, ‘ There is something in what you say.' Next day, he sent for me and said, ‘ You are right. I have decided not to send that letter.' Such was the greatness of the man; he always kept an open mind. After he had actually drafted the letter and finalised it, he said, ‘I am not sending it.'
I'll try to write more (in the context of the many comments I've received on FB) later – time permitting. I am desperately busy at the moment, and I'm replying to this well after midnight, and have a working day from early tomorrow…
I'm not a retired man like Anna. I have to earn a living through a full time job. And I have many other responsibilities as well. So let me say what I can now, and will add more info later.
I trust this clarifies at least some of the MANY comments I have received.
As part of my research to investigate whether Hinduism promotes or denies reason, I've conducted a brief study of Gandhi's collected works – 98 volumes in all. (Today, every word that Gandhi wrote can be searched in a millisecond! Just go to advanced google search and restrict the search to the domain: http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/.)
Gandhi is not a Hindu teacher, but his views were often informed by his Hindu upbringing. Posted below is my preliminary research. Happy to receive other evidence (either for or against) on this topic. In brief, I find that Gandhi was not clear about the role of science and reason.
(There is another possible candidate. I studied in DAV College Jullundur, most academics of which were Arya Samajis – followers of Dayananda Saraswati. DAV institutions have been at the forefront of science. For instance, the Nobelist Hargovind Khorana not only studied in DAV High school Multan but got his BSc degree from DAV College Lahore. I can vouch for the high quality of the chemistry labs in DAV Jullundur. It is quite possible that Dayanand Saraswati might have advocated science and reason. Anyone know anything about that?)
1) Gandhi understood and broadly supported the scientific method:
"A person who is scientifically inclined does not take the truth of anything for granted; he tries to prove it himself. In this way he develops his own intellect and also obtains knowledge of the potentialities of things. Why does an apple fall off the tree, why does it not fly up? It is said that this question arose in Newton’s mind and he discovered the law of gravitation. Is the earth flat like a plate? Is it stationary? Such questions arose in Galileo’s mind and he discovered that the earth is spherical like an orange and revolves on its axis. Such discoveries have produced great results." (Source: Collected works of Gandhi, p.40, Vol. 81. http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL081.PDF)
Also:
"It is enough for us to know that it is the correct goal and, having started the activity, we have to correct our mistakes and go forward. That is the essence of the scientific method. No science has dropped from the skies in a perfect form. All sciences develop and are built up through experience. Perfection is not an attribute of science. Absolute perfection is not possible either for man or for the science that he creates. For example, astronomy is continually progressing. Many mistakes have been made and corrected. The process still continues. The same may be said of the science of khadi." (Source: Collected works of Gandhi, p.179, Vol. 90. http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL090.PDF)
2) But Gandhi was not a fan of technology:
‘“mass production” is a technical term for production by the fewest possible number through the aid of highly complicated machinery. I have said to myself that that is wrong. My machinery must be of the most elementary type which I can put in the homes of the millions.’[3]
3) He also thought that science did not offer anything substantial:
‘Nothing that the modern civilization can offer in the way of stability can ever make any more certain that which is inherently uncertain; that, when we come to think of it, the boast about the wonderful discoveries and the marvellous inventions of science, good as they undoubtedly are in themselves, is, after all, an empty boast. They offer nothing substantial to the struggling humanity.[4]
4) And he positively opposed modern medicine:
‘Do not deceive yourself with the belief that allopathy today holds the field by virtue of the backing and patronage that it receives from the Government. In my opinion it holds its present position in the world because, though it is a false science, its votaries have faith in it and have made great sacrifices to advance it. But the modern naturopaths have made no sacrifices. They are easily satisfied. No wonder they feel they have earned the right to fleece the poor and gullible and grow rich.[5]
[3] Collected works of Gandhi, p.20, Vol. 54. http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL054.PDF
[4] Collected works of Gandhi, p.209, Vol. 53. http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL003.PDF
[5] Collected works of Gandhi, p.157 Vol. 95 http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL095.PDF
Many of India's "educated" people seem to have little sense of history and seriously underestimate Gandhi. Regardless of all his flaws and shortcomings, Gandhi remains a towering figure – both as a man of love and non-violence and as a man of superlative strategic genius.
A small movement of his feet, clad in thongs, would set the entire country aflutter and dashing off after him. If at all there is an illustration in the world in recent times of the sheer power of goodness and morality, his example must surely rank at the top. (I'm talking very broadly here – for even Gandhi did not claim he was perfect.)
As illustration of this erroneous sense that many people in India have about Gandhi, and in order to help minimise this common misunderstanding about Gandhi's role in India (and the world), here's what a commentator wrote on this blog today, and here's my response:
The commentator, Ranganath R (here's his blog) wrote:
Both Anna H and MKG are/were deluded and misguided messiahs. If you think AH has no idea or theory of a state or nation, even MKG did not really have any. His vision of a Sevagram economy and society if implemented would have landed India in a greater disaster than Nehruvian socialism.
Gandhi's charisma, popularity and the spirit of the times in which he reached his peak provided the intellectual justification and rationalization for his mediaval and outmoded ideas and methods. While it is a hypothetical argument now, Gandhi with his idealistic theories and satyagraha antics delayed our 'freedom' from colonial rule by atleast 50 years, by crowding other effective agitational methods.
Dear Ranganath
I’m unable to agree. Gandhi did know precisely what he was doing, and why. He kept learning and innovating as he progressed, and he can’t be considered to have been widely read, but he did have a justification for what he promoted. His worldview was simplistic in the extreme, but that simplicity was founded on love. That not everyone felt it (e.g.Jinnah or the Harijans) is inevitable.
I do not agree that without Gandhi India would have got its independence 50 years earlier. First, he came on the scene only 30 years before independence (from 1915). Second, all other programs before his movements were elite-based and the masses in India did not care for independence, for they could not distinguish between ancient Hindu kings, Mughal rule, and British rule. In fact, many of the things in their life were getting better in the British rule, so they were not particularly anti-British (recall that the British did not commit any major atrocities before 1919 Jalianwalah Bagh, after Gandhi had come on the scene and started turning up the pressure by one notch).
The first mass movement in India occurred in 1921-22, being called off after Chauri Chaura. It was the first mass expression of the people after 1857 (which was much smaller in extent).
It was these growing mass protests that unnerved the British. They had no reason to fear anyone but Gandhi. What if he did not call off his non-violence moment after Chauri Chaura? He held an instrument more powerful in his hands than anyone before him – and after him. He could turn the entire country on and off like a tap. That power was what ultimately put the fear of God into the British – and indeed the Quit India of 1942 was at least a partial expression of that power.
And it was through his efforts that we slowly got a democracy – based on the 1935 Act. He carefully tutored DEMOCRATS like Nehru, and shunned violent rebels like Bose. Without his over-arching influence India would have become a broken nation, racked by internal violence of a magnitude 10 times more than what you see today.
He could not prevent the partition of India, but without him India would not have been 3 countries, but 30.
I don’t buy your arguments. Gandhi was a genius, and he did have a solid theory. Read his work – it goes into millions of words. He had very clear understandings of what he was doing and why.
Let IAC not compare the super-genius Gandhi with a half-baked copycat AH, or a confused Ramdev.
S
(Note:I use a Bushism in the title of this blog post for I find this interesting word more illuminating than the simple word, "underestimate", given it can be used to refer to the concept of serious under-estimation).
Addendum
'Gandhi did not oppose science' ("Most Indian philosophy of the last few centuries consists of the study of Indian philosophers of the past. Gandhi was one of the few who produced a philosophy of his own")
Now, back to analysis. The following is the current version of the discussion re: fast unto death in DOF. This was revised many weeks ago, but based on the discussions at the moment, I'll probably need to review this section.
b) Mahasamadhi, and fasting to death for a public cause
A few other methods of self-harm raise particularly prickly questions. A mahasamadhi is (apparently) an event in which someone, as part of religious belief, wills himself to death. Whether this is at all feasible without causing direct violence on one’s body is a question best reserved for another day (noting my scepticism about such events, and that I would need sturdy data that might not be readily forthcoming). The key issue is this – that people with the purported power of mahasamadhi are usually highly revered. Such self-destruction is charged with widely perceived moral and spiritual properties. Another challenging method of self-harm is fast unto death. Thus, when Gandhi undertook his (relatively frequent) fasts unto death, he did so with full public disclosure. The main thing to note is that he aimed to protect, not harm life: for instance, he often aimed to prevent communal or other mass violence.These acts appear to violate Proposition 1, and yet, undertaken with wide public awareness, they are not comparable with garden variety suicide. Proposition 1 aims to maximise life. When people, in following a particular moral path, undertake such acts of self-destruction, their actions raise many questions of justice and accountability. I would think that the key is to prove that such actions are not in someone’s vested personal interest. Should that have happened, or the truth distorted, then placing such a person under arrest and force-feeding him would be perfectly valid. There is a very fine line distinguishing these actions, and calls for the exercise of considerable judgement.
FURTHER ANALYSIS
The intent is quite clearly outward-oriented in the Gandhian case – to bring about a net social improvement. There must also be a desire for self-purification, and love for the enemy. Gandhi does not do such things for personal gain, but for a religious objective. When he wants to reform society (e.g. highlight the plight of the Harijans), or bring about Hindu-Muslim accord, then, too, one can understand: it is a life-affirming act.
However, would this method be appropriate to compel a government to enact a particular piece of legislation? How would the Gandhian method play out in a democracy?
I think the conditions attached to this method are so many and so stringent that NONE can legitimately aspire to them. In a democracy, as well, it is inappropriate for any one to use the threat of self-harm to over-ride normal electoral processes.
Therefore I'm inclined to rule out this method of self-harm in the free society. It is simply too hard to understand and explain. It will invariably lead to confusion and emotional excitement.
I obviously can't speak for Gandhi, but I'd imagine that he would have agreed that this method should NOT be used to over-ride the democratic process in FREE, INDEPENDENT INDIA.
My position – re: the need to prohibit all such attempts to over-ride democratic processes – therefore stands.
Recent Comments