The Naked Fakir

Re: # 209

Gandhiji did evolve/change over time. He, however, was the product of his time and quite a traditionalist on some matters and way ahead of his time and a revolutionary on some other matters. His recognition that civil disobedience is a powerful weapon in the hands of the powerless is, no matter how you slice it, is still revolutionary although in trying to be consistent he was led into some absurd positions.
[He didn`t do a very good job as a father in his personal life. Ironically, there was book written by one of his female associates - ``Bapu - my mother``.]
Coming back to your own folly, I am in no way comparing you to Gandhiji - I wouldn`t even dream of it so rest assured ;)
However, if you and hamidm are in cordial terms now, it`s to his credit not to yours. Moreover, whereas I can understand a 19-year old being ``foulmouthed``, I still cannot understand why you brought his wife into the picture. Did you grow up in an environment where it was common to abuse women as a matter of course? How did this come about?
This was more than being foulmouthed, this was misogynic, a malady common in our part of the world and alas, not even modern education could cure you of it.
Think about poor Gandhiji, a success by the European standards, and yet no better than the ``kafirs``* that the Europeans held in contempt. What was he to do other than aspire to be like them?
(*kafir is an interesting term to describe someone not your own - I wonder why he chose that one)

Manto, Ambedkar`s or dalits` case is entirely different. They have suffered so much that he had a full right to take an entirely casteist view of Hinduism and even Gandhi. That can`t be the case with the rest of the world.

Why Gandhi said things or did things with regard to race is not so very important for me, for reasons I have described. Still (and don`t think of it as a challenge!), what logical repercussions do you see of a lawyer representing only his client who legally hires the lawyer and pays his bills? Can we say that Gandhi acted in South Africa only as most lawyers do (even as a bad one)?

One would think that most lawyers did not achieve as much in South Africa as he did.

Ironic...

That this is the line of argument that you have been forced to take. That gandhi was there only as a lawyer... representing the Indian community... please do consider the logical repercussions of this.

BTW Ambedkar held in 1946 that Gandhi was the worst enemy of untouchables in India...

I will continue to post the other half of the truth...

Mantolives

Yours and Gandhi`s growth years were very different. Most importantly, he did not have the Internet for people like us to teach him (kidding you, my friend).

And in sheer IQ, Nehru probably beat him. Neither could Gandhi ever become as modern as Nehru naturally was.

But Gandhi the conservative did choose Nehru the liberal as his heir. Gandhi also saved Nehru`s rear from assault by Nehru`s more conservative opponents many times.

That`s one of the things that made the man that he was.

Entire South African existence, including its constitution, revolved around racial gradations. One`s rights flowed from where one stood on racial totem pole. Gandhi went there *explicity* to act as the lawyer for the Indian community. It was his *explicit* charge to get Indians a better deal. He was probably paid for it (some one please confirm).

He *should* have acted for the Africans too. He *should not* made have some of the arguments he placed before the authorities, for whom in South Africa, race mattered so much. But to take him to task for those shortcomings in hindsight seems a stretch.

---

I avoid pasting long articles here, but the following article may yet change minds. It comes from the African National Congress website (the Internet has become more a trash can than a library. One should be very careful in using it for reference).

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/1.html

Eighty years ago, on January 9, 1915, M.K. Gandhi returned to Bombay after 21 years in exile, wearing a loin cloth and travelling from London in the lowest class of the ship. He was acclaimed by the whole nation which was inspired by his struggle and sacrifice in South Africa for the honour of the ``Motherland``. As he went around the country with Kasturba, the heroine of the last phase of the South African struggle, huge receptions were held and addresses presented to him in every city. ``Moderates`` welcomed him as much as ``extremists``, Muslims and Parsis as much as Hindus.

This Gandhi had little relation to the M.K. Gandhi, the 23-year-old barrister in a suit, who had sailed from Bombay in April 1893 by first class in the hope of finding opportunity in a new land.

In later years, Gandhiji said that he was born in India but ``made`` in South Africa;

``it was after I went to South Africa that I became what I am now``.

He told the Kanpur Congress in 1925 that ``Indians of South Africa claim that they have given me to you. I accept that claim. It is perfectly true that whatever service I have been able to render... to India, comes from South Africa.``

To understand the evolution and transformation of Gandhiji in South Africa, it is necessary to note, as he himself stressed on several occasions, that he was not a born saint and had not had an extraordinary childhood or youth.

He said in a speech in 1925:

``I never had a brilliant career. I was all my life a plodder. When I went to England... I couldn`t put together two sentences correctly. On the steamer I was a drone... I finished my three years in England as a drone.``

---

One can read rest of the article on the ANC website. Please do look it up. It`s not long. It also has some comments regarding women.

soya,

I accept that view... people do change their views over time.
Did Gandhi change his views? According to Dr B R Ambedkar he didn`t.
But lets say he did... do his earlier choices become irrelevant in toto?

Despite the fact that hamidm and I are on cordial terms... I don`t hear the end of it from people like you and I was an foul mouthed teenager unlike Gandhi the 35 year old barrister...

Seriously you can`t have both ways.

Re: # 203
The point is people grow up/change. It`s more than likely you`ll discredit/disown some of your current opinions 5 years from now. Even more likely if you were to put down every thought that occurs to you unconcerned about propreity.
Gandhiji was a successful lawyer working for rich businessmen in SA. To be treated on par with natives instead of being considered as equal to the ruling classes was indeed a shock to him. His views on the superiority of the Europeans and the inferiority of the natives underwent considerable change with time.

``he declared Hindus worshipped the cow while Muslims ate it, etc. ``

Yes... that is equal to Gandhi saying ``Black people are subhuman``.

If Gandhi`s exclusivist bigotry, despite his overt claim to speak for everyone, is not clear to people from his statements like ``I am true Hindu, therefore an Indian`` ... then I am afraid nothing will explain it better. It was this experience... the experience of being called the ``gentleman from the minority Muslim community`` that turned people like Jinnah away from the cause they dedicated their entire lives to... the exclusivism starts with Gandhi...
whose casteism, racism and bigotry is on ample display and who was called the worst enemy of the untouchables by none other than Ambedkar...


I suppose by the logic that Sadna uses even Ambedkar was racist... because his writings are full of ``hate`` against Hindus (and yes Muslims too) ... and his words are infinitely harsher than Jinnah`s...

Dear Sadna,

I have already replied to your lies about Jinnah in posts 177, 189, 195... you have nothing new to offer ... It seems to me that you believe in the Old Gandhian theory that the more you repeat something, the more it becomes the truth.

I will however respond to the part about Gandhiji- the original topic of discussion

`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi

(Young India January 6th 1927)

This date is not South Africa... In 1927 Gandhi was NOT in South Africa. He had already usurped the Indian Independence movement, he already encouraged the Mullahs in the Khilafat movement, he had already communalised the environment. Sanghtan it must be recalled was a movement to re-convert Muslims and Christians to Hinduism/Arya Samaj.

Furthermore you write:

``you would be unable to find any later occasion or later instance when Gandhi, as a political activist in India excluded any community from his life, his politics or his party``

Let us consider some of his other more famous statements:

1- ``I am a true Hindu and therefore an Indian``

2- ``The rule of a Musalman is that of a Bully``

3-(`` (1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....

(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.

(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.

(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.

(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.

(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.

(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.

(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system. Gandhi in 1922- also India)


4-In 1922, Mr. Gandhi was a defender of the caste system. Pursuing the inquiry, one comes across a somewhat critical view of the caste system by Mr. Gandhi in the year 1925. This is what Mr. Gandhi said on 3rd February 1925:

The best remedy is that small castes should fuse themselves into one big caste. There should be four big castes so that we may reproduce the old system of four Varnas.


5-((1) I believe that the divisions into Varna is based on birth.
(2) There is nothing in the Varna system which stands in the way of the Shudra acquiring learning or studying military art of offense or defense. Contra it is open to a Kshatriya to serve. The Varna system is no bar to him. What the Varna system enjoins is that a Shudra will not make learning a way of earning a living. Nor will a Kshatriya adopt service as a way of learning a living. [Similarly a Brahmin may learn the art of war or trade. But he must not make them a way of earning his living. Contra a Vaishya may acquire learning or may cultivate the art of war. But he must not make them a way of learning his living.]

(3) The Varna system is connected with the way of earning a living. There is no harm if a person belonging to one Varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other Varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned he must follow the occupation of the Varna to which he belongs which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers.

(4) The object of the Varna is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the Varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons.

(5) Varna means the determination of a man`s occupation before he is born.

(6) In the Varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation. His occupation is determined for him by heredity.`` )


More later...

-YLH

Mantolives #203
You still don`t point out where did Gandhi practise exclusion - did he discriminate against people on basis of castes or religions. No. Did he exclude any community from membership of his party. No. Did he claim to represent only one community? No. Jinnah did.

Jinnah`s policies towards and hate speech against Hindus were pretty racist. He demanded that Hindus must not be granted a majority, he stated that Hindus were unfit for democracy unlike Muslims, he declared Hindus would destroy Muslims and Islam in India, he declared Hindus worshipped the cow while Muslims ate it, etc.

As for deep Muslim alienation - the solution demanded by Muslims for their deep alienation was a sovereign state Pakistan which was created 58 years ago. It is quite clear that the solution didn`t work as Jinnah claimed it would, because today Pakistani Muslims who are now in 97% majority still declare themselves victims, don`t take responsibility for they do and blame Gandhi, Nehru and Hindus for ongoing events in Pakistan.

I go cold thinking that if Pakistani Muslims declare themselves victims of Hindus when they are in 97% majority and existing in a separate state, what they would have termed themselves as a 25% minority existing with Hindus in the same state- the whole of India would have been in flames of a Muslim jihad all these last 58 years. Instead of hearing daily ranting about J&K, we would be hearing of the sufferings of Muslims of undivided India and their ``freedom`` from Hindus would have become a world cause like Palestine. Best that those Muslims got their freedom in 1947 and do their victimhood tamashas by themselves in their own Pakistani territory without disrupting the rest of the subcontinent.

The inability of Pakistani Muslims to cease being victims even at 97% majority also makes clear that they are a group of people in a permanent state of alienation. If Gandhi and Nehru did alienate them back then, then Gandhi and Nehru did a big favor to all the succeeding generations of Indians by saving these Indians from the inevitable blame of `alienating the Muslims`.

soyasauce,

Is 19 the same as 40?


Sadna,

What a cop out... Gandhi`s views on caste didn`t go through any radical change ... Ambedkar called him a caste Hindu fanatic even in the 1940s... and called him the biggest enemy of scheduled castes and minorities. I think Gandhian politics, despite its overt displays of goody goodiness, was in the end a deeply Hindu focused politics... which alienated the Muslims. So you might not see 199 as examples of Gandhi`s exclusivism... but then you always had weird logic.


Refer to 199 and read it carefuly... to see Gandhi`s exclusivism.

Yasser
Aren`t you the same guy that insinuated you had slept with hamidm`s wife? Are you the same guy still? Were you not old enough when you made that brilliant claim?

People grow and change.
Gandhiji never denied anything about himself.
His was an open book where he wrote about everything uninhibited and unhindered by political considerations. If what he wrote makes him look ``racist`` then so be it.
You should also read Ved Mehta`s book on Gandhiji where he mentions that Gandhiji didn`t mind the presence of others in the communal latrine when he was going about his duties and would carry on conversations. Contrast that with Jinnah who probably had imported special, noise-masking Japanese toilets. One more blot on Gandhiji.

Mantolives #199
Gandhi`s views on caste/varna evolved with time as you well know. You also fail to point out where did he practice exclusion in his life, his politics and his party?

DM#192
Ok, and I understand that post.

When racist ``Mahatma``, rather than trying to save his own hindu race, was fasting in Calcutta trying to save ``muslims``, astute constitutionalists were instigating direct action days, and planning to become all powerful governor generals.

Dear Sadna,

I have already replied to your lies about Jinnah in posts 177, 189, 195... you have nothing new to offer ... It seems to me that you believe in the Old Gandhian theory that the more you repeat something, the more it becomes the truth.

I will however respond to the part about Gandhiji- the original topic of discussion

`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi

(Young India January 6th 1927)

This date is not South Africa... In 1927 Gandhi was NOT in South Africa. He had already usurped the Indian Independence movement, he already encouraged the Mullahs in the Khilafat movement, he had already communalised the environment. Sanghtan it must be recalled was a movement to re-convert Muslims and Christians to Hinduism/Arya Samaj.

Furthermore you write:

``you would be unable to find any later occasion or later instance when Gandhi, as a political activist in India excluded any community from his life, his politics or his party``

Let us consider some of his other more famous statements:

1- ``I am a true Hindu and therefore an Indian``

2- ``The rule of a Musalman is that of a Bully``

3-(`` (1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....

(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.

(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.

(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.

(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.

(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.

(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.

(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system. Gandhi in 1922- also India)


4-In 1922, Mr. Gandhi was a defender of the caste system. Pursuing the inquiry, one comes across a somewhat critical view of the caste system by Mr. Gandhi in the year 1925. This is what Mr. Gandhi said on 3rd February 1925:

The best remedy is that small castes should fuse themselves into one big caste. There should be four big castes so that we may reproduce the old system of four Varnas.


5-((1) I believe that the divisions into Varna is based on birth.
(2) There is nothing in the Varna system which stands in the way of the Shudra acquiring learning or studying military art of offense or defense. Contra it is open to a Kshatriya to serve. The Varna system is no bar to him. What the Varna system enjoins is that a Shudra will not make learning a way of earning a living. Nor will a Kshatriya adopt service as a way of learning a living. [Similarly a Brahmin may learn the art of war or trade. But he must not make them a way of earning his living. Contra a Vaishya may acquire learning or may cultivate the art of war. But he must not make them a way of learning his living.]

(3) The Varna system is connected with the way of earning a living. There is no harm if a person belonging to one Varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other Varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned he must follow the occupation of the Varna to which he belongs which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers.

(4) The object of the Varna is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the Varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons.

(5) Varna means the determination of a man`s occupation before he is born.

(6) In the Varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation. His occupation is determined for him by heredity.`` )


More later...

-YLH