Gandhi in The Handmaid’s Tale

Sadna`s Fradulent tricks

There is a reason why Sadna doesn`t quote the speeches that she claims would make people weep... the reason is stated below:

Its her old style. Sadna takes a nugget of fact out of context- and adds to it her own interpretation of the events surrounding it, usually false in toto. Then she claims it to be history - look at my ilogs she says. Her ilogs are speculations that don`t stand the test of history and she was made to eat her words on the CMP debate. She might fool the naive... and those who are willing to believe her, but with reasonable men and women her stock is exceptionally low.

Now... let me give you example... Sadna comes up with information that Muslim League did not open its doors to Non-Muslims after partition. So she claims, no doubt some Indian polemicist was at the back of her claim as she is never original, that Jinnah stopped them... She omits the fact that the whole idea of transforming the Muslim League into Pakistan League was originally Jinnah`s, that there was opposition to this idea within the party, that Jinnah quit the Muslim League on 17th December 1947 stating that he could not continue as the head of avowedly communal organisation and be an impartial head of state as well, that Jinnah had appointed a Hindu on a Muslim League seat even when his strategy rested completely on the two nation theory and that Jinnah appointed a Hindu as the law minister... but no ... she operates with that first nugget and claims a whole lot of nonsense.
You see... the term half truth is no where more fittingly applied than on our dear Sadna... except in her case half truth is really a small 1% of the truth... Her entire case rests on this... and when she is called for her lies she retreats from her position. She had famously and falsely claimed that Cabinet Mission Plan was bad because it gave Muslims 50 50 parity with the Hindus which was undemocratic... when shown otherwise she claimed that the problem with the Cabinet Mission plan was that it allowed communal vote on communal matters and then when asked how that could be an issue for the majority... she came up with a hair brained scheme that Foreign Affairs were a communal issue...

We are used to this nonsense from her... but why here and now on an article about Gandhi? My stated objective in 34 was to present the otherside of Gandhi as he is an icon of humanity... we are all in agreement that Gandhi is celebrated world over as a great world icon... and that we should investigate his life from that angle... that whether he stood the test of modernity, racial equality, women`s rights etc.

Instead of dealing with Gandhi, Sadna has attacked Jinnah- who all here, self-included, accept that is a forgotten figure but in my opinion a figure to whom a great deal is falsely attributed- but a forgotten figure nevertheless... why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here? Why?... that his allegedly communal positions become all of a sudden the reason to acquit Gandhi of his flaws?

So let us frame the issues again:

1) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s racism
2) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s social conservatism
3) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s bigotry against Muslims and untouchables.
4) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s role in supporting/perpetuating British imperialism

Sincerely

YLH

The inevitable Jinnah vs Gandhi...

Since Anil`s post is addressed to Aisha Sarwari, I`ll let her deal with and mete out the service that it deserves. However I wish to point out that in light of the stuff posted above, if a comparison with Jinnah has to be drawn then one will see that Jinnah, unlike Gandhi, always supported the women`s movement and the Suffrage movement... and this fact was brought out when some of the leading suffrage movement figures in England, then late in their lives, came out at a memorial service and spoke about Jinnah`s commitment to unpopular but just causes...

If it is the treatment of his womenfolk is concerned, then it must be said that Jinnah never shut his wife up... infact his wife Ruttie, held to be the prettiest woman in Bombay, travelled as far as Duke University in North Carolina without Jinnah at his side (and way before their relationship got messed up) lecturing on theosophy, if it is treatment of his wife, regardless of the unfortunate circumstances of Jinnah`s life, it must be said that Jinnah was man enough to leave Lord Wellingdon`s company after Lady Wellingdon insulted Ruttie for wearing a low cut dress...



And I think that aside... one does not need to go far but to consider the most famous pronouncements of both men...

``No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you; we are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable condition in which our women have to live.`` Mohammad Ali Jinnah, 1944


with this...

This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe who are in it appear to be half mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be the queens of households, wander in the streets or they slave away in factories. For the sake of a pittance, half a million women in England alone are labouring under in factories or similar institutions. This awful fact is one of the causes of the daily growing suffragette movement Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi


Any honest individual will give credit where its due. It is sad to see Anil, of all people, resorting to such arguments... for example... this statement won`t hold... ``I accept that Jinnah didn`t make any comments against black people but because Jinnah was Gandhi`s contemporary, he must have the same views as Gandhi``... and now he is claiming something... It is sad..

But this ARTICLE is NOT ABOUT JINNAH...

I must repeat the question below:

why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here? Why?... that his allegedly communal positions become all of a sudden the reason to acquit Gandhi of his flaws

...

Gandhi`s views on women reflect the views that were prevalent in those times. Common,
Aisha, the man was born in the nineteenth century!!!!!!!!. He never forced his opinions on anyone.
Women in India have freedom that is unthinkable in Pakistan. In Dec 2004 some journalists from Pak had visited Chandigarh. In the interviews that many of them gave they would always mention the freedom that women had. One said that he was surprised to see single women going around on scooters, motorbikes etc late at night. Another said that you could talk to any women on the street and no one would stare. He also said that equality of the sexes in India was to be seen to be believed. A woman journalist said that in Pakistan only very few elite women had the freedom of movement that almost all women have in India, etc, etc. Whatever Gandhi said has no bearing today and his views were never forced down the throats of women.

``Gandhi`s views on women reflect the views that were prevalent in those times. Common,
Aisha, the man was born in the nineteenth century``

Now this is the most pathetic cop out... The Great Mahatma Gandhi is an icon of Liberalism and Humanity.... he is supposedly the ``greatest man to walk the earth`` because Einstein said so... he inspired some of the greatest movements of the 20th century...

But let us compare his views to a mere pygmy compared to the great Mahatma... also born in the 19th century... a man who championed a parochial demand ... and who didn`t inspire anyone but a few dumb Pakistanis... what were the views of this 19th century pygmy called Jinnah as opposed to Gandhi on the issue of women ...


Let us frame the issues:

On the role of women:


Mahatma Gandhi: This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe who are in it appear to be half mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be the queens of households, wander in the streets or they slave away in factories. For the sake of a pittance, half a million women in England alone are labouring under in factories or similar institutions. This awful fact is one of the causes of the daily growing suffragette movement


Pygmy lowly Jinnah: No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you; we are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable condition in which our women have to live.

While lowly Jinnah`s pretty wife was at full liberty to wear what she pleased and travel where she would want to go and be friends with who she wanted ... The Great Soul, icon of humanity, greatest man to ever walk the earth Mahatma Gandhi`s wife, according to him extremely ugly, was not allowed to do anythign without his permission.

Mahatma Gandhi ji: I must needs be for ever on the look-out regarding her movements, and therefore she could not go anywhere without my permission. I wanted to make my wife an ideal wife. My ambition was to make her live a pure life

So you see sir... great Soul Mahatma Gandhi`s views on women were exceptional like he was exceptional... why else would his views differ from a mere pygmy of hsi time.

-YLH

Some Answers to:

A) Why pick on Gandhi, he’s dead, he’s flawed, he’s a reflection of his times.

Gandhi, may God Rest his Soul in Peace, deserves respect from everyone, because he managed to make it to the imagination of many people even after his very violent death.

What people make out of the dead is neither fair to the dead person, nor good for people. If someone truly honors their founding fathers, they study them in depth and look at his life holistically. Fact is, that this has never happened with Gandhi, before he could be learned, he was iconized, even during his life.

The danger there is that you choose aspects that suit circumstances and you hide/disregard aspects that are harmful to certain interest groups. Everyone deserves to know the truth, because different conclusions are drawn when you manipulate the life of someone to appear more suitable. If you really care about Gandhi’s legacy, stand up for the one thing he always proclaimed: truth.

The argument that everyone is flawed hence Gandhi is flawed is not valid. Gandhi is not flawed to the world. Admit the fact that when introducing new celebrities people anchor their fame in Gandhi by saying, “I am a great admirer of Gandhi:” From Madonna to Karzai, to CNN ads. Admit that in Self help, Inspirational, New World Faith books Gandhi is an unrecognizable human being. He’s a demigod. He doesn’t deserve to be one, because sooner or later demigods are broken.

Gandhi was not a reflection of his times. He is a reflection of his religion and tradition which at the time was not equitable to all people, it was caste based and patriarchal. On numerous counts it was discriminatory. Gandhi was very attached to his religion, and he could not separate his Indianess from his Hinduness.

If Gandhi was a reflection of his times, how come Jinnah was so progressive when it came to women’s rights? Try what you may, no one can fling mud on the man for being patriarchial. While Gandhi was forbidding his wife from leaving the house, Rutti was going to Duke university with Kanji Dawarkadas to lecture on Theosophy. He was a man whose heart belonged in the family. He rested his head on Dina in the park, had Fatima as his companion and adored his wife. The differences with Dina are overplayed for the Pakistani public, for we too have reengineered the man after his death to suit is, and look at where we are because of it.

It’s shameful that some of you are making lewd suggestions about Jinnah and his family. If you are defenders of Gandhi, it would suit you better to a) accept the truth about Gandhi’s own unprincipled stands and b) be non-violent if pointed out to you.

As for the American presidents who held slaves. One must be quiet ignorant to point this out. First, The American Founding fathers are not idols in the minds of Americans. Secondly, every History textbook in America covers the fact that they were slave owners, but still managed to rise above their traditions and keep an equal rights provision in the constitution. These are flawed men. Their flaws are known and they are known for being men, not idols.

B. Gandhi vs. Prophet Muhammad

It is an established fact among Islamic Scholars and theists that the prophet’s last wife, Ayesha was not 9 when the marriage was consummated. So throw that out the window, or if you would like to reject scholarship and follow consensus feel free to do so.

The Prophet was a prophet. Gandhi was not a prophet. The Prophet of Islam a) Married a woman years older to him, much more powerful than him without his masculinity coming into question. Mernissi concludes that the prophet loved women. And until Khadija was alive he never remarried. Compare this to the jealous boyfriend who didn’t let his wife out of the house, and who couldn’t control his control-freak behavior so he decided never to have sex with the wife again. Now consider that this was 1300 years or so before the control freak who is now considered a prophet.

Polygamy is an unnatural state. It is in the Quran a limitation, not more that 4 wives, its not an obligation of “up to four wives” and it has two major preconditions, a) only if resources can be allocated justly, and b) The first wife must agree. Gandhi didn’t even seek his wife’s permission on an issue that involves her more than it involves him, just for his political gains. How can such an unprincipled person in his personal life give lectures of equality. This is a crime against the woman that should not go unpunished.

But let me say here that even the Prophet must be put though the same tests as any other man. He too has been reconstructed after his death, and look at where Muslims are now.


C. Don’t bash Gandhi because Pakistan doesn’t give you a moral standing to

Gandhi’s life is a flawed reality. No woman should accept the world to cultivate such debilitated and dehumanizing icons. Pakistan is a state, the actions of its leaders or its criminals don’t define its ideal, or the ideal presented to it by Jinnah. Of equality, fraternity or fair play.

I have a moral standing because Muhammadali Jinnah was a man with an unshatterable character.

D. Quotes are a stretch

Myths take long to shatter; first there is denial, and then anger, then rejection, then attack then introspection. Collected Works of Gandhi, his journals and his diaries are not enough proof?! God knows what the tattuos like Romair and Sadna would say if it was another source. Kindly read the two books by Hindus I have listed in the article.

Anil,

Pathetic attempt to be an apologist. Really you disappoint me, yet again. My great-grandfather (interesting personal attack) was not of Gandhi’s mindset. He walked with her, he took her opinion, especially in something mutually contracted by a marriage certificate, like sex or kids, freedom of mobility and even if he wasn’t egalitarian, which I admit he wasn’t, I am sure that he wasn’t inhuman. By the way my Great Grand father from my mom`s side was in Kokan, India and from my dad`s side in Afghanistan.

What lawyer, enters a marriage contract and then alters the terms agreed upon? In Rene Zelweiger’s case, when her husband did this, her lawyers called it ‘fraud’ and he had to pay quiet a sum. But wait, this is 60 years later, so the same injustice earlier doesn’t count.

And About Margret Atwood,

Please go read what feminists really think about Gandhi. I really spared him in this article.

Aisha Sarwari

Wow.. Aisha

Indians attacks are amazing...

First they try to abuse Jinnah, a pygmy lowly leader, who gave his wife freedoms that are even unheard of today... then they pick up a 7th century Arab for comparison.. and finally they abuse your great grandfather... Sad coming from the one man I thought was the most fair and balanced.

or I should correct the statement before Aisha lampoons me:

Pygmy lowly Jinnah accepted that his wife was a human being on her own who was free to move about and make her choices, travel abroad without him and could wear as she pleased... in short pygmy lowly Jinnah thought his wife was an individual... as opposed to Gandhi.

Under sieze manto uncle? :)

vaga?

Looks like you didn`t read it :)

Dear Behram B. Atashband

Thank you for your post. I am always awed by the Parsee community, there is much to learn, and thanks for sharing your views about Jinnah and Gandhi. I think the way Bapsi covers Gandhi in Ice Candy Man leaves nothing to the imagination. She also clearly expressed her not so friendly views toward Gandhi in Books section of TFT two months ago.

Like I said, no self respecting woman, or man can turn Gandhi into an icon.

Sincerely,

Aisha Sarwari

``Indians attacks are amazing... ``

I read this which got me worried :)

No self respecting women already have an icon in Musharraf. :))

``Gandhi was a carnal being, who instead of committing to self-improvement, decided to Band Aid his jealous boyfriend issues though religion, and also gaining some international fame as a result. He’s probably the only global figure who commands awe and respect dispite doing his own plumbing and not having sex for ages.``

I know 16-year olds who could come up with something better than that.

Re: # 61

I know, so what was Gandhi thinking?

Aisha,
What happened to the modern, progessive Jinnah when it came to his daughter, Dina. He broke ties with her because she wanted to marry a Parsi. [ Behram take note.]
You write that Indians shold accept that Gandhi was flawed, so than why are you justifying
Islam. Why cant you too accept that it is a flawed religion and Mohammed was flawed too.
WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARDS.
The problem is that Gandhi, inspite of all his flaws, is more popular worldwide than Jinnah, a fact that is very difficult for Pakistanis too digest.

#55 by Mantolives

[Pygmy lowly Jinnah accepted that his wife was a human being on her own who was free to move about and make her choices, travel abroad without him and could wear as she pleased... in short pygmy lowly Jinnah thought his wife was an individual... as opposed to Gandhi.]

So if Jinnah treated women as his equal, why was he opposed to allowing his daughter marrying a Parsi? After all, his daughter was a woman too and he himself had married a Parsi.