Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi

Rating:
Summary: A Non Orientalist Perspective on the Subcontinent FINALLY!
Review: Finally in Wolpert we have a Non Orientalist Perspective on Gandhi and the Indian Politics.

Indians and these "feel good" so called Historians will have us believe that the earth is flat and that the son revolves around the earth.

They will have us believe that these great freedom fighters singing "Ragh pati Radhav Raja Ram" (No I am sure it wasnt Khudi Ka Sirhi niha La illah illallah) could defeat the British Empire which had defeated the combined armies of Ottomans and Germans in the first world war, and defeated Nazis in the second...

Let us wake up and smell the coffee. There was no independence Movement except the real true movement for self rule that Jinnah, CR Das, Annie Basant, Tagore, and even Motilal has been the integral part. Gandhian civil disobedience was a religious movement, .... a non violent movement which always ended in violence ironically.

The British didnot like Jinnah, and they adored Gandhi? You know why? Gandhi fit their image of the mystic of the east, the mysterious goat milk drinker Bramhiacharya, the austere saint who had renounced all wordly pleasures, a man of god, jesus re incarnate. No sir, Gandhi was not a rebel, he was "exotic India" of the British crown, the one man freak show who every had to touch and feel the mystique of.

On the contrary, Jinnah was a WOG, with an analytical mind, and British manners. A man who was better than the British, as one of my venerable professors put it (temporal I have learnt my lesson rest assure), who could argue better than they could, who could quote Burke better than they could, a lawyer par excellence, a dangerous man, a man who beat them at their own game. How could this man be adored by the British. This man had broken all the stereotypes of the east. The best lawyer in the entire British empire was an Indian Muslim, who spoke better than they did. It must have been quite imposing for them to see a mere "darkie" to get away with a monocle, a man 'who was more Royal than the Emperor'. Indeed, in Jinnah they saw a Modern India, in Gandhi they saw the exotic India...who would they prefer?

In Jinnah, the British saw a Washington, a Benjamin Franklin, a Thomas Jefferson, they even saw a William Pitt in him, and an Ataturk ... in Gandhi they saw a mere freak of nature who made the British Empire more colorful.

Let me say this, there is a reason why the West was in the 1930s so nostalgic of the old Ottoman East, and critical of the Modern Turkish Republic which looked more European. They dont like people who beat them at their own game.... these "Tommies", as Jinnah called them, could not have been more pleased to see the countries of the East adopt the ways of Gandhi... it reinforced their racial superiority.

These so called Gandhi lovers in the west, this Louis Fischer, this Richard Attenborough, ,... how many of them renounced their western lifestyles... how many replaces their saville Row suits with the loin cloth of Gandhi?

The so called Love and Respect for Gandhi represents "ORIENTALISM" at its best. No doubt the Myth of his non violence Movement inspired people who did go ahead and create genuine Non Violence movement, well then yes I do respect his contribution to the world as a fictional and mythical character. Gandhi should be seen by the Modern World for what he was, a Revivalist saint who did not even have the gutts to be a reformer.

Also READ "Jinnah of Pakistan" By Stanley Wolpert!

Rating:
Summary: A great soul and 20th century's greatest man
Review: Good biographies, especially the scholarly kind, invite us to reconstruct or at least revise our estimate of the subject of the biography. Stanley Wolpert, an eminent scholar of Indian history, who acquired quite a bit of notoriety in India by publishing what now sounds like an innocuous novel about Gandhi called Nine Hours to Rama (1966), has now revisited the Mahatma by writing a biography which is neither hagiographical like so many memoirs and the Government of India financed movie of Gandhi’s life by Attenborough nor dismissive like the estimate of the man and his message offered by the likes of Arthur Koestler. Wolpert looks at Gandhi as Hindu Indians would wish to see him, as a yogi whose accomplishments as a prophet of nonviolent revolution changed the world’s ways of looking at the discourse of power. The habit of automatically associating Gandhi with saintliness has kept most writers about him bound to the notion of glorifying him or glossing over his weaknesses which were many and substantial. Now fifty-three years after his death, being in possession of greater knowledge about the man, his strength, and many unwise and vain activities, we find it tempting, urged by Wolpert’s narrative to speculate on how things might have turned out for India in particular and the world in general had the Mahatma (the great souled one) possessed greater self-awareness or his nature were less paradoxical, the contradictions in his character preventing him from gaining the kind of influence on India, perhaps making it imperative for his country to adhere to most of his unquestionably valid basic moral principles. Wolpert is no happier than most other biographers of Gandhi when he draws our attention to the less admirable traits of Gandhi’s complex personality which made him cling to the world even as he rejected it because it had not reached the moral purity he was trying to envelope it in. Wolpert’s Gandhi is a man of action, his courses of action always dictated by God through a channel that only Gandhi had access to. Gandhi’s claim to an intense personal relationship with God made disagreement with him impossible for his educated followers. Jawaharlal Nehru, for instance, found Gandhi’s apotheosis of poverty and his somewhat elementary understanding of political economy difficult to grasp. Gandhi was a gifted seer who intuitively knew that the end of imperialism was near and he knew better than anybody else how to bring it to its knees although in his twenties and early thirties he saw himself as a loyal subject of the empire. Yet he refused to see the inevitability of the world’s industrialization and considering industrialization a total evil, he failed to see how it could have been an ally in accomplishing many of the goals he was striving for: better sanitation, better health, physical and moral, and more food for India’s masses. Personal sacrifice was Gandhi’s mantra. Although he was, outwardly at least, a champion of self-rule, he denied self-rule to members of his own family. Thus his wife had no say in the matter when he embraced celibacy and the unfortunate story of his son Manilal is clearly indicative of Gandhi’s inflexibility in situations demanding a great deal of give and take. A man who preached universal forgiveness, Gandhi could not bring himself to forgive what he saw as the misdeeds of his hapless son. Wolpert does not go into detail about the son’s attempt to reconcile with the father, but the statements of Gandhi he quotes make it clear that Gandhi was not at all interested in letting his prodigal son return to the fold. A most haunting passage in the book is the one that describes a universally ignored Hari Lal, now a convert to Islam, furtively hanging around the site of his father’s cremation while his younger brother lights the funeral pyre. For a prophet of individual and national autonomy, Gandhi comes across a jealous, controlling figure in the book. Women for whom he definitely had a passionate physical attachment received letters from him which barely conceal the attachment. Some of these women were quite young when he conducted his experiments in maintaining his celibacy even as he slept next to them.... Trying to head off the inevitable partition of India, Gandhi annoyed millions of Muslims as well as Jinna by claiming to speak for Indian Muslims. He truly believed that it was in his power to persuade Jinna to abandon his idea of carving a Muslim nation out of India. Even more tragic was his assumption that he could sway the charismatic British Governor General of Free India, Louis Mountbatten, and the ambitious Jawaharlal Nehru to offer the highest administrative office in the country to Jinna in return for a promise to keep India undivided. Especially painful to him must have been the realization that he no longer owned a voice that could stop the murderous Hindu and Muslim masses vengefully mauling one another to death. The penultimate chapter of Wolpert’s book is devoted to how the post-Gandhi India has almost entirely rejected Gandhi’s legacy. Gandhi was a man of the present; he could take an enslaved country and set it free. But because his inner contradictions would not allow him to envision an independent India facing up to the inevitable challenges of nation building, Gandhi now resides in the minds of young Indians as a much revered figure who has little to say to them.

Rating:
Summary: Not the Right Lesson
Review: I am a firm believer that biographies of great men should not only relate the person's life but also attempt to teach things which may be drawn from that person's life. Stanley Wolpert's biography of Mohandas Gandhi, "Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi", brings the "Great Soul" to life but fails in providing the proper lesson.

Like most great men, Gandhi was a complicated personality. Wolpert does not hide the underside of Ghandi's personality even though he is an obvious admirer of the Mahatma. Wolpert not only portrays the good that Ghandi accomplished in the service of Indian independence but also the odd behaviors he sometimes engaged in like being bathed by his female followers. Many of his odder episodes were performed in the hope of ridding himself of the human frailty of lust. Gandhi felt that by tempting himself with attractive young women he could harden his heart against his baser impulses. Wolpert even goes so far as to describe how poor of a father and husband Gandhi was. Although, some would argue that it is almost impossible to be a good family man when leading your nation to independence.

Wolpert does well in his description of Gandhi's life. However, I believe the lessons he attempts to impart from it are mostly wrong. The one thing that is most associated with Gandhi is non-violent resistance. It was partially non-violent resistance and civil disobedience that eventually won India its independence. What Wolpert doesn't say, being too busy castigating the racist British imperialists, is that non-violent resistance only worked against the British because they let it work. As uncivilized as the British behaved in their colonies, there was a line that they would not cross. That line in Gandhi's case was executing a man who offered no violent resistance. Had Gandhi had to win India's independence from a lesser civilized nation, he likely would not have lived very long.

Also, Wolpert never seems to grasp the hypocrisy of Ghandi railing against the racist Westerners at the same time that he put down Westerners and Western civilization as barbaric and inferior to Indian civilization. While Gandhi never seemed to treat the British as inferior, his writings always portrayed that as his real feeling.

Of course, the flip side to this is that Wolpert rightfully credits Gandhi with developing the best plan for, if not saving Indian unity post-British occupation, then at least saving the country much of the violence of the partition. Gandhi would have installed M. A. Jinnah as India's first prime minister instead of his "disciple" Jawaharlal Nehru. After the creation of Pakistan was all but assured, Gandhi would have given the provinces of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan to avert the inevitable wars that India and Pakistan would fight over the Muslim-majority provinces in Indian territory.

It's sometimes difficult to separate one's opinion of a great man and one's opinion of a biography of the same man. However, with "Gandhi's Passion" I must do so. Wolpert in the end tries to teach the wrong lessons from Gandhi's life. This does a disservice to someone who has meant a lot to so many people.

Rating:
Summary: Not the Right Lesson
Review: I am a firm believer that biographies of great men should not only relate the person's life but also attempt to teach things which may be drawn from that person's life. Stanley Wolpert's biography of Mohandas Gandhi, "Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi", brings the "Great Soul" to life but fails in providing the proper lesson.

Like most great men, Gandhi was a complicated personality. Wolpert does not hide the underside of Ghandi's personality even though he is an obvious admirer of the Mahatma. Wolpert not only portrays the good that Ghandi accomplished in the service of Indian independence but also the odd behaviors he sometimes engaged in like being bathed by his female followers. Many of his odder episodes were performed in the hope of ridding himself of the human frailty of lust. Gandhi felt that by tempting himself with attractive young women he could harden his heart against his baser impulses. Wolpert even goes so far as to describe how poor of a father and husband Gandhi was. Although, some would argue that it is almost impossible to be a good family man when leading your nation to independence.

Wolpert does well in his description of Gandhi's life. However, I believe the lessons he attempts to impart from it are mostly wrong. The one thing that is most associated with Gandhi is non-violent resistance. It was partially non-violent resistance and civil disobedience that eventually won India its independence. What Wolpert doesn't say, being too busy castigating the racist British imperialists, is that non-violent resistance only worked against the British because they let it work. As uncivilized as the British behaved in their colonies, there was a line that they would not cross. That line in Gandhi's case was executing a man who offered no violent resistance. Had Gandhi had to win India's independence from a lesser civilized nation, he likely would not have lived very long.

Also, Wolpert never seems to grasp the hypocrisy of Ghandi railing against the racist Westerners at the same time that he put down Westerners and Western civilization as barbaric and inferior to Indian civilization. While Gandhi never seemed to treat the British as inferior, his writings always portrayed that as his real feeling.

Of course, the flip side to this is that Wolpert rightfully credits Gandhi with developing the best plan for, if not saving Indian unity post-British occupation, then at least saving the country much of the violence of the partition. Gandhi would have installed M. A. Jinnah as India's first prime minister instead of his "disciple" Jawaharlal Nehru. After the creation of Pakistan was all but assured, Gandhi would have given the provinces of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan to avert the inevitable wars that India and Pakistan would fight over the Muslim-majority provinces in Indian territory.

It's sometimes difficult to separate one's opinion of a great man and one's opinion of a biography of the same man. However, with "Gandhi's Passion" I must do so. Wolpert in the end tries to teach the wrong lessons from Gandhi's life. This does a disservice to someone who has meant a lot to so many people.

Rating:
Summary: Facts vs Fiction
Review: In a democracy every one has a right to voice his opinion something 'a reader' doesn't understand... instead he jumps to the obviously childish accusations and insinuations which makes his review all the more entertaining. Unlike the 'reader' I actually gave historical facts. Instead of countering any of those facts, Mr anonymous reader has used incendiary vocabulary which has only helped to strengthen my case ...

Having been educated in the United States, the World's GREATEST democracy, I highly doubt that my history has been 'military guided' or the product of onesided theology(To which as a secularist I take strong exception). If the 'reader' feels that my treatise on Jinnah is fiction, be advised that the material I used was from 'Jinnah of Pakistan' by Stanley Wolpert the same author whose current book he is giving 5 stars to...

Gandhi might have been a great leader, but no one can deny that he is responsible for bringing religion and superstition into politics for the purposes of mobilization. No one can deny that one of the man's massive appeals is his 'exoticism' (his half naked antics, his dhoti, his religious mumbo jumbo) which gives the warm tingly feeling to a sensitive but unaware westerner... In contrast the well dressed Barrister Mohammed Ali Jinnah seems quite ordinary ....

That is the irony of the study of History in our times... ofcourse you have to be Winston Churchill to look beyond such facades... it is well known that Churchill held men like Jinnah and Ataturk in much greater esteem than walking wonders of the world like Gandhi.

Next time instead of petty accusations choose the facts please...

Rating:
Summary: Very informative
Review: This one is a non-orientalist perspective with unbiased informataion about Making of Gandhi, the person.It is a good analysis of what made up his character, passions and his complexities.

Rating:
Summary: A great soul and 20th century's greatest man
Review: While everyone does not need to view Gandhiji as a holy man (because their definitions of holy may vary), it is incredulous that some would question the existence of the Indian independence struggle and Gandhiji's non-violent non-cooperation movement or its effectiveness! I refer in particular to the review in this section by one Yasser Hamdani who seems to have used this review as another occasion to spew bile and venom borne of jealousy. That it is based on sheer jealousy becomes amply clear as one looks at Mr.Hamdani's fictional treatise on Jinnah. Such corrupt minds I wish had been exposed to some real education instead of mere one sided theology and / or invalid military guided history.

Rating:
Summary: Gandhi's Passion Holds to Love and Nonviolence
Review: Wolpert paints a lucid picture of India's "Great Soul." The man behind the enigmatic icon is examined. What motivates Gandhi to invite suffering for political, religious and environmental causes? The historian offers numerous interesting insights. Gandhi's privileged childhood, barrister days, and early campaigns in South Africa are explored; clues that reveal how he became a living god. His early influences of Hinduism, Christianity, and Buddhism lead him to develop a nonviolence philosophy.
Wolpert exposes inner conflicts plaguing Gandhi while maintaining the difficult road of ahimsa (nonviolent love). The battle with lust is one inner conflict (his assitants slept besides a naked Gandhi). However, his will overcomes the shortcomings. His faith in ahimsa for India and the world was stronger.
Fasting, imprisonment, boycotts were some of the peaceful weapons he imposed. Behind every action was a message of love and peace. Gandhi's vision to free India, banish untouchability, and make India viable rested on a crux notion: there is no gain through the horrors of modern war and power. The frail thin man warns, "Retaliation is no remedy. It makes the original disease much worse." Gandhi's legacy list luminaries such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama and countless other leaders. Wolpert's biography is a page-turner that competes with the best of fiction. This book will give the reader a through understanding of the complex man and his times.