Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

Rating:
Summary: "Gandhi Behind the Mask" is a unique book of its kind.
Review: G.B. Singh's "GANDHI BEHIND THE MASK OF DIVINITY" appears as an unprecedented historical investigative work. In my survey of Gandhian literature published since 1919, I have not come across a book of such magnitude. The author's comprehensive and detailed portrayal of Mahatma Gandhi as a racist and a militant Hindu fundamentalist is indeed a radical deviation from the popular image of Gandhi. Such a controversial rendition of Gandhi is bound to generate further research. No human being should be beyond controversy. In that sense, the author's immense contribution is highly commendable.

In Singh's view, Gandhian social philosophy of racism is either directly derived or synonymous with the teachings of Hinduism.
The author appears to substantiate his view from several angles. As a practicing Hindu, Gandhi could not be otherwise.

Singh's intricate hermeneutics of multiple issues about India, and Gandhi demands careful historical analysis. I do not claim to have fathomed the depths of his insight. One thing I am sure, Gandhian scholars cannot afford to bypass this book. The luxury of stereotyping has apparently ended.

Rating:
Summary: "Gandhi Behind the Mask" is a unique book of its kind.
Review: G.B. Singh's "GANDHI BEHIND THE MASK OF DIVINITY" appears as an unprecedented historical investigative work. In my survey of Gandhian literature published since 1919, I have not come across a book of such magnitude. The author's comprehensive and detailed portrayal of Mahatma Gandhi as a racist and a militant Hindu fundamentalist is indeed a radical deviation from the popular image of Gandhi. Such a controversial rendition of Gandhi is bound to generate further research. No human being should be beyond controversy. In that sense, the author's immense contribution is highly commendable.

In Singh's view, Gandhian social philosophy of racism is either directly derived or synonymous with the teachings of Hinduism.
The author appears to substantiate his view from several angles. As a practicing Hindu, Gandhi could not be otherwise.

Singh's intricate hermeneutics of multiple issues about India, and Gandhi demands careful historical analysis. I do not claim to have fathomed the depths of his insight. One thing I am sure, Gandhian scholars cannot afford to bypass this book. The luxury of stereotyping has apparently ended.

Rating:
Summary: Don't need to read the book
Review: I didn't read the book, but I understood what the author is upto and I don't need to read it. The author wants 'cheap' popularity. What else is the best way to get it, by throwing mud on such a great person as Gandhi? We have to remember, Gandhi is not a god, he is only a man, but a great man with far more great qualities and less weaknesses than the rest of us. Since he is a man, he didn't show any miracles like Lord Krishna or Rama, instead he acquired the wisdom and just did his best to remove unjustices perpetrated by his fellow human beings on others. So he just did what is humanly possible. So criticizing him as racist for not helping some people doesn't make sense. If he is not the ideal human being, then no other 'man' is born on the earth till date (Lord Krishna and Jesus are gods).

Rating:
Summary: Historical Revision at its worst
Review: I have no problem reading criticisms of gandhi and his ideas, but this book goes beyond that. It denies the very escence of gandhis teachings for no other purpose than to do just that. The Historian who wrote this is a revisionist. While at times, Revisionism can be helpful in understanding characters-this is revisionism for revionism sake. The claim of the book that gandhi was a racist and hindu fundamentalist is absolutly absurd when one reads gandhis writings on religion and truth, "differen't roads converging at the same point," is not a mark of fundamentalism. I found this book to be very poor in trying to be overly critical, and took many parts of gandis life out of context

Rating:
Summary: Gandhi: The Racist Under the Cloak of Ascribed Divinity
Review: Singh's book, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity is a courageous rendition. I'm surprised at the audacity of this author to coin such a despicable portraiture of a popular Mahatma. That such a characterization of Gandhi as a racist is not so palatable. In stead of posting my opinion right away, however, to be honest to my self and the author, I had to read the book with a great deal of initiative, and admit that such vast evidence as Singh has incorporated and more particularly in parts 2, 4, 6 of his book cannot be overlooked. The evidence seems to suggest, rahter substantiate taht Gandhi - although born in a merchant caste (not a ruling class), a third ranking tier in the caste system - has adopted the mindset of a racist. To the extent Gandhi demonstrated his approach towards blacks in South Africa and untouchables in India, he comes across as a Hindu fundamentalist and racist. In not the author himself a racist? He states on p. 15 that he was born in an upper caste. Caste system is the most insidious form of racism existing today. Sikhism does not officially recognize caste. Yet Singh mentioned his caste despite the context. Are not all those people racists who silently seek to claim or maintain their status quo in some form or other? The author says that he was unveiling a "new" Gandhi (Part 5)? Unveiling a new Gandhi? In what way is he a new Gandhi if he were a racist and a Hindu fundamentalist? Is that not an old Gandhi with caste all over his face? What does the author mean here? Does he mean that a new Gandhi is a kind of racial bigot underneath the ascribed cloak of divinity? I believe this book requires further investigation as to its historical accuracy.

Rating:
Summary: Gandhi: The Racist Under the Cloak of Ascribed Divinity
Review: Singh's book, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity is a courageous rendition. I'm surprised at the audacity of this author to coin such a despicable portraiture of a popular Mahatma. That such a characterization of Gandhi as a racist is not so palatable. In stead of posting my opinion right away, however, to be honest to my self and the author, I had to read the book with a great deal of initiative, and admit that such vast evidence as Singh has incorporated and more particularly in parts 2, 4, 6 of his book cannot be overlooked. The evidence seems to suggest, rahter substantiate taht Gandhi - although born in a merchant caste (not a ruling class), a third ranking tier in the caste system - has adopted the mindset of a racist. To the extent Gandhi demonstrated his approach towards blacks in South Africa and untouchables in India, he comes across as a Hindu fundamentalist and racist. In not the author himself a racist? He states on p. 15 that he was born in an upper caste. Caste system is the most insidious form of racism existing today. Sikhism does not officially recognize caste. Yet Singh mentioned his caste despite the context. Are not all those people racists who silently seek to claim or maintain their status quo in some form or other? The author says that he was unveiling a "new" Gandhi (Part 5)? Unveiling a new Gandhi? In what way is he a new Gandhi if he were a racist and a Hindu fundamentalist? Is that not an old Gandhi with caste all over his face? What does the author mean here? Does he mean that a new Gandhi is a kind of racial bigot underneath the ascribed cloak of divinity? I believe this book requires further investigation as to its historical accuracy.

Rating:
Summary: A timely subject, superficially addressed
Review: The author links Gandhi with 4 offenses: 1) India's development of nuclear weapons; 2) the murder of a white American; 3) the habit of some writers to accept Gandhi uncritically; 4) Gandhi's failure to resist additional injustices during his active career.

As to the first, the link is really too preposterous for discussion. As to the second, that would be a matter for the appropriate authorities, if there were any truth to it.
As to the third, Gandhi himself often cautioned people not to accept his ideas unless they made sense, and certainly not on his authority only. As to the fourth, it is true that Gandhi began his career in South Africa where his fellow Indians were part of an oppressive social structure, with white settlers at the top, Indian indentured workers and merchants in the middle, and black natives at the bottom. Gandhi identified with the Indians and struggled to improve their condition; and he did not address the problems of the black natives. In this sense, one could call Gandhi a "racist". Also, Gandhi was born into the ruling class of India, and did not immediately renounce all privilege. Gradually he gave up worldly power and wealth, but it is possible to say he was not completely consistent about it. Personally, I find such criticism silly.

Rating:
Summary: A timely subject, superficially addressed
Review: The author links Gandhi with 4 offenses: 1) India's development of nuclear weapons; 2) the murder of a white American; 3) the habit of some writers to accept Gandhi uncritically; 4) Gandhi's failure to resist additional injustices during his active career.

As to the first, the link is really too preposterous for discussion. As to the second, that would be a matter for the appropriate authorities, if there were any truth to it.
As to the third, Gandhi himself often cautioned people not to accept his ideas unless they made sense, and certainly not on his authority only. As to the fourth, it is true that Gandhi began his career in South Africa where his fellow Indians were part of an oppressive social structure, with white settlers at the top, Indian indentured workers and merchants in the middle, and black natives at the bottom. Gandhi identified with the Indians and struggled to improve their condition; and he did not address the problems of the black natives. In this sense, one could call Gandhi a "racist". Also, Gandhi was born into the ruling class of India, and did not immediately renounce all privilege. Gradually he gave up worldly power and wealth, but it is possible to say he was not completely consistent about it. Personally, I find such criticism silly.