Gandhi Reconsidered: When Paganism Met Progressivism

By Selwyn Duke

When an Indian-born man I knew a couple of decades ago expressed an intense dislike for Mohandas Gandhi, I found it a bit surprising. Wasn’t the “Great Soul,” that quintessential 20th-century icon, India’s George Washington?

That certainly is the narrative created by historians — who, history has taught us, can tell a lie — and works such as Richard Attenborough’s award-winning 1982 film Gandhi. But there is a reason why Indian-born novelist Salman Rushdie responded to that movie by lamenting, “Deification is an Indian disease. Why should Attenborough do it?” And with Gandhi back in the news owing to a newly published biography about him, it’s fitting to examine what that reason might be.

Any discussion of Gandhi should start with what most characterizes his image: non-violence and respect for all peoples. And the image certainly is a bit different from the reality. Everyone knows, for instance, about how Gandhi advocated non-violence in India’s struggle against the British; what is less well known is that, after the British’s 1906 declaration of war against the Zulus in South Africa, Gandhi encouraged that nation’s Indians to support the military effort, writing, “If the Government only realised what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.” And while the British weren’t amenable to this — thus, ironically, doing more at that time to ensure Indian pacifism than the drum-beating Gandhi — he was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British army and allowed to lead a stretcher-bearer corps.

Read the rest here.

Comments

[Philip France]

Wow! Blockbuster article.

Thank you Selwyn. I had no idea.

[Walt]

Nice job Selwyn, it looks like the Gandi is a myth just as much as Abe Lincoln is.

[Robert Berger]

Just bercause Gandhi had his foibles and personal failings is absolutely no reason to
dismiss him out of hand or deny the enormous amount of good he did for India and human rights in general. Many great indidividuals have accomplished much and made great contributions to the world despite their undeniable flaws as human beings.
Martin Luther King is known to have been a womanizer despite the fact that he was married and had four children. Does that lessen the enormous good he did for African Americans and America as a whole in any way? Of course not.
Ronald Reagan, who is so uncritically worshipped vby conservatives, did an enormous amount of harm to the poor in America by slashing and eliminating government funding for them. He was hoodwinked by wildly exaggerated reports of welfare fraud in America into doing this. Conservatives never have the honesty to admit this, but under him, the poverty rate in America increased greatly because of his foolishness. Welfare fraud does exist in America, but it's never been all that common.
He wasn't guilty of being cruel or evil, just stupidity.

[A High School Student]

Mr. Berger if you want people to buy your argument then you are going to have to try much harder. If Mr. Duke was wrong (and he is not), he at least has evidence to support his argument. You offer nothing in defense except for finger pointing and emotional appeal. If you could actually use legit evidence such as quotes, events (be specific and support), etc, then you would have a better basis with your arguments. By the way, I think I have asked this before, Why do you even bother posting stuff on this site if you know that people that read this tend to be on the conservative side? If you want to read information that is more suited to your mentality, do so, you are not going to convince any one of anything on this site. I will continue to call out on you for your weak arguments until you see how ridiculous you sound. By the way sir, I think that you should be more worried about the current state of affairs in this country.

Oh and very good article Mr.Duke. My father had talked to me about this a couple of years ago and I was skeptical. By hearing you put it in the words you did, it makes more since to me now. Keep on posting good articles and I will read them. Very good job and I hope you enjoyed your Easter.

[Philip France]

I believe that it was Blake who said, "“The eye altering alters all.”. Mr. Berger makes less sense than a moonbat. That he spews his opinions here is evidence that leftists are more fascist than they are "liberal".

Read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change" to understand this more clearly.

[Julian]

What does "paganism" have to do with Gandhi's thought?

If Gandhi was influenced by anything it was Christian pacifism of the Tolstoy variety and he was in love with that sermon on the mount. His contemporaries in Indian politics were very explicit in their criticism of his eccentrities and his perversion of various concepts like ahimsa (non violence).

To suit his eccentric ideas he even managed to twist around Hindu scriptures like the Gita and the doctrine of ahimsa (non-violence) whereas the Gita is explicitly about the need to fight a righteous war (Dharmayuddha) as a last resort when all other peaceful methods fail.

He was shot dead by a Hindu man who was pissed off at his perverse advice to Hindus and Sikhs who were being wiped out in the newly created Muslim state of Pakistan. He told them that they should all get killed willingly if their Muslim brothers want to kill them and forced the refugees to vacate empty mosques that they occupied in Delhi in the middle of winter, his assassin could not tolerate his ever increasing pro Muslim attitude and shot him dead.