Catching up with Gandhi by Graham Turner

 One Book Too Many

Gandhi writing, or more accurately writing about Gandhi, has become in the last couple of decades, a growing industry. Turner has followed this trend and added another book to the vast universe of published material on Gandhi. This book is the product of Turner’s travels to all the places of significance in Gandhi’s life in India, and South Africa. In these travels, he is accompanied by Rajmohan Gandhi, the Mahatma’s doubly distinguished grandson (Rajmohan is also simultaneously the grandson of Rajagopalachari from his mother’s side). We may well ask: Does this book have any value? Should any one read it? The answer is, Yes, in so far that it can be reasonably assumed that the contents of this book have Rajmohan’s approval. This reviewer breaks down Gandhi for the benefit of the readers.

1.       Sex, Celibacy, Chastity, Non-violence and Spirituality. Gandhi in his life, and in his writings and preaching, made an illogical and poorly argued hotchpotch of these concepts. The fact that this recipe had a long historical precedence in different spiritual traditions does not validate it. This reviewer force-fed on Gandhi in his growing years had always been mystified by this mish mash of ideas. This book offers an entirely pedestrian justification. In Rajmohan’s words (page 72): “There was, first of all, a practical side to it. At that time, birth control was little known. He (Gandhi) realized only too well that if he did not practice chastity, he would certainly have more children and, so far as [was] concerned four was quite enough.” We wish Gandhi had cut all the confusing spirituality out, and been more forthright about his predilections. He might even have received good advice on birth control devices!   

2.       Foreign domination of India. There is unanimity of opinion about British colonialism over India, with the suave Shashi Tharoor, a Congress politician, emerging as the most articulate critic of British colonial policies. However the same Tharoor is coy about the effects of a millennium of Islamic domination over India, arguing quite ineffectively that the “they”, referring to Muslim invaders, became “us” (see Tharoor’s dialogue with ‘Sadguru’ Jaggi Vasudev on YouTube), implying that the invaders integrated seamlessly into the host society. The phenomenon promoted tirelessly by post-independence Nehruvian “Marxist Historians” is called “syncretic culture” (see my reviews of Tilloston’s Delhi Darshan, and Rana Safvi’s translation of Zahir Dehlvi’s Dastan-e-Ghadar). Since Gandhi died in 1948, without the privilege of being educated on the fine details of Hindu-Muslim syncretism, what were his views on this subject? I quote three passages from the book:

(i)                  “And what nation needed love and encouragement more than Gandhi’s India? After all, it had not ruled itself since the first Muslim sultan captured Delhi in the 12^th century. Now centuries of foreign domination and exploitation were about to be ended by the oddest freedom fighter in history.” (page 98)

(ii)                “Gandhi was well aware that many Muslims were convinced that if Hindus came to power, they would use that power to pay Muslims back for the savagery vented upon Hindus by Muslim rulers in centuries long-past; temples sacked again and again, tens of thousands of Hindus mercilessly slaughtered. --- and raw wounds of history would be painfully exposed.” (page 100)

(iii)               “There was pervasive communal distrust between the Hindus and Muslims, made all the deeper by the wounds of history.” (page 132)

Clearly Gandhi and his grandson, under whose aegis this book has been written, did not subscribe to the idea of the existence of a syncretic culture. Tharoor should know that “a Muslim sect in Malabar with a history of fanaticism rebelled against the Government and their Hindu landlords. The Raj sent in troops to put down the rebellion. Thousands died. The fledgling trust between Hindus and Muslims was further damaged.” (author’s words, Page 140). The reference here is to the Moplah rebellion of August 1921 which took place in Tharoor’s backyard.  Yet, Tharoor promotes this fiction to protect his vote bank. To Tharoor’s misfortune, several historians from Guha to Dalrymple have begun to pivot from their original positions, pointing out gingerly that the stance of the Nehruvian historians was such, as to permit of certain valid criticism. More on this in a future book review.   

3.       Some comical interludes.

(i)                  Fasting as an instrument of coercion to make the whole society subservient to his own will was something Gandhi excelled at. He fasted unto death no less than 17 times in the course of his life! Imagine his chagrin, when the wife of Maganlal Gandhi, his cousin, started a fast to protest when an untouchable couple were admitted into Gandhi’s ashram. Apparently Gandhi “fasted back” (page 107)! All this competitive fasting no doubt moderated the grocery bill of the Ashram, but a Gandhian protest against a Gandhian objective is a novel restatement of Russel’s paradox.

(ii)                A certain Saraladevi (niece of Rabindranath Tagore), with a great natural sexual oomph came to live in Gandhi’s ashram and completely entranced the latter. They developed a close relationship, "though what took place between them physically nobody knows" (the author’s words) (page 125). Presumably nothing exciting happened as Gandhi later is supposed to have mentioned that he contracted a spiritual marriage with her!

(iii)               In response to the Viceroy’s taunt that Gandhi was not helping the empire in its war efforts, Gandhi went on a recruitment drive to enlist soldiers for Britain. His vigorous campaign led to about 100 volunteers, with Gandhi himself and Sardar Patel topping the list! With such soldiers on the battlefront, the Empire hardly needed any enemies. One wonders if the Mahatma was unaware that over 1.5 million Indians were serving in the British army, the largest volunteer army in history until then.

(iv)              When Gandhi’s son Manilal wanted to marry a Muslim girl from Cape Town, he wrote to his father seeking permission with no doubts that “the idea to be warmly welcomed given Gandhi’s passion for Hindu-Muslim friendship; and was utterly dismayed when he discovered that his father thought it was a very bad idea” (author’s words, page 164). At that time Manilal, was editor of Indian Opinion. Gandhi threatened to remove Manilal from the editor’s job, effectively threatening him with unemployment. Eventually Manilal was permitted to marry a Bania girl. So much for the Mahatma’s passion for Hindu-Muslim unity. It was a prescription for the poor suckers who were at the receiving end of Muslim violence, not for any one of his own flesh and blood. Similarly, Gandhi aided the breakup of the engagement of Motilal (Nehru)’s daughter with her Muslim lover (see Reddy, Mr. and Mrs. Jinnah), another utterly laughable episode in the most modern Nehru family.

(v)                Post independence, G.D. Khosla a judge appointed for safe guarding refugee property came to Gandhi, who was then in Delhi, seeking advice on some difficulties he was encountering. It is not known what advise he received from Gandhi, that helped in the management of refugee properties. However, Khosla recalls- “Realization came to me that this man had only one sentiment in his heart and that was the sentiment of love---“ (page 297). The Mahatma was truly the Rahul Gandhi of his century!

  

4.       Peace activists and the Armed Forces. Talking about his Mentor Rajmohan, the author writes, “His main passion these days is to help bridge the gulf between the Muslim world and the West” (Page 10). I found this extraordinary as Rajmohan belongs neither to the Muslim world, nor the West. Ensconced within the secure precincts of the University of Illinois, it is easy to dream big, and take upon oneself pompous goals. As the Mahatma’s grandson, his services would have been better appreciated within the subcontinent. For instance, did he try to bridge the gap between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Hindu minority when the former won the 2001 general elections, and went on a rampage against the latter? Acknowledging the genocide, Khaleda Zia, President BNP had famously said,

 “I regret the continuing massacre of Hindus and Buddhists in Bangladesh, but Bangladesh is an Islamic Nation and not Secular. Now, the Muslims are in majority here. Under the circumstances, if Hindus and Buddhists want to live safely, they should either convert to Islam or go to India.” (emphasis added)

 

Did Rajmohan try to educate her? It is likely he desisted from such misadventure in the interests of self-preservation, and remained largely in America. For much the same reason, I will not even suggest that he cross India’s western border towards Pakistan.

 I have observed that peace activists in self-righteous anger often denigrate the Armed Forces of the country, as though the latter are somehow the enemies of Peace. Some of these indeed believe that in disturbed areas, as in the Kashmir valley, and in parts of the Northeast, where Special Powers Acts (or the AFSPA) are in force, it is the local Army Commander, who one fine morning took a deep breath, drove over with his men, and took over the administration of the region and imposed draconian regulations. They cannot be blamed for such misconceptions, as the Great Jawaharlal Nehru, our first Prime Minister himself subscribed to such ideas. He feared being deposed, harboured deep suspicions about the Army, frequently talked down to his own Army Chief, and defanged the Indian Army by reducing its strength considerably till disaster struck in 1962. And when it did, he did not authorize the use of the Indian Air Force on the specious plea that China would bomb Calcutta in retaliation. In the event he died soon after, a disillusioned man in disgrace. However to be fair to the Indian people, it is not they who disgraced him, but that he felt it within himself. As a later day author has observed elsewhere, Nehru, like Aurangzeb and Ashoka before him, had stayed too long in power (Sanyal, Land of the Seven Rivers) without reinventing himself. It is in this Nehruvian tradition that peaceniks are often seen demonstrating before the Army encampments, while actually they should be protesting the failure of the civilian administration which in the first place invited the Army to take charge.

 So what do the peace activists, Rajmohan included, need to learn from all this? As a senior Army veteran has observed elsewhere: When the Army fails, the Nation fails [see tbyc.in, an interview of Lt. Gen. P. G. Kamath (Veteran), by Ashutosh Garg]. The least the peaceniks could do is to cease denigrating the Armed Forces of the country. But this is exactly what this author proceeds to do, with one presumes the implicit sanction of his Mentor Rajmohan. What exactly is said in this book, and a fact-check of the narrative being peddled by the author is discussed in the link below. I urge all readers of this review to also read the link.  

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/book-gandhi-can-author-charged-sedition-lt-gen-p-g-kamath-htxtc/?trackingId=a39f3pzfQVuCpe9sQkHJMw%3D%3D

One final word: The book is embellished with some fine line drawings. These are credited to Juliet Boobbyer, whose name appears only on the inside of the back cover page. Uncharacteristically, the line drawings do not carry the artist’s signature. The illustrator’s name should have been listed on the Author credit page as is the usual practice. But for these illustrations, this book deserves to be thrown away. Alternatively it could be used to prosecute the author for defaming the Mahar Regiment.