Mohandas Gandhi: Salman Rusdhie's article in TIME
Hari Tadepalli
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/gandhi.html
Hari Tadepalli
____________________________________________________
There is a well known Indian parable in which five blind men go and “see” an
elephant by touching its parts. When asked as to what the elephant is like,
each one gives his own answer. Rushdie does exactly what a typical
journalistic review does to present an ‘understanding’ of a complex & vast
phenomenon: punctuate it with an ensemble of seemingly incongruous facts,
dramatize & dissociate facts out of their known context to trap the reader
into contradictions & bewilderments that he/she had not been aware of. The
whole article can be critiqued for its maneuvers to construct a “Gandhi full
of contradictions, eccentricities, incomprehensibility &
incorrigibility,...”. Consider, for example, Rushdie’s statements (quoted
from the above web pages):
1. “yet in today's India, these peoples, now calling themselves Dalits and
forming an increasingly well-organized and effective political grouping,
have rallied around the memory of their own leader, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar,
an old rival of Gandhi's....”
2. “(He believed that total control over his "vital fluids" would enhance
his spiritual powers.)“
3. “He was determined to live his life as an ascetic, but, as the poet
Sarojini Naidu joked, it cost the nation a fortune to keep Gandhi living in
poverty. His entire philosophy privileged the village way over that of the
city, yet he was always financially dependent on the support of industrial
billionaires like Birla”
4. “he spent much of his life far from the political arena, refining his
more eccentric theories of vegetarianism, bowel movements and the beneficial
properties of human excrement. “
Let me clarify my understanding of the above aspects of Gandhiji’s life.
Regarding (1): Gandhi believed in the efficacy of a strong regimen of
personal reform to transform itself into a social reform (in all its
completeness). Gandhiji’s sense of social reform goes beyond ensuring social
justice for the week & the meek. Gandhi’s way of seeking justice involves
voluntary personal sacrifices, much above Ambedkar’s political primaries for
the socially downtrodden. Also it is not historically correct to state that
Ambedkar was his political rival. There is no place for political ascendency
for personal privileges in the Gandhian ideology. That the realignment of
the socially backward castes of India after Ambedkar & his followers owes to
the same factors by which the educated middle classes have taken to free
market consumerism – they offer tremendous potential for quick returns in
terms of personal gains. So, where is the contradiction in Gandhi’s life
simply because these first generation Indians of post Independent India have
chosen to digress from his thoughts & ideals ?
Regarding (2), it is not a comical belief that Gandhi invented to indulge in
some kind of masochism. It is an essential recommendation of all major Hindu
religious scriptures & saints to limit one’s sexual desire to the
perpetuation of one’s family. This goes true of other physical indulgences
well – including eating & sleeping. Physical pleasures are treated as
suboptimal pleasures in comparison with the God. Hindu religious theories,
in fact, proscribe all sexual desire for the seekers of God. Rushdie might
not appreciate these theories, but such are the eccentricities about Hindu
religion.
Regarding (3): A Gandhi confined to the Sevagram would not have costed the
nation a lot. When Gandhi, the social messenger needs to travel, he needs to
be fed with his corporeal needs, however minimal they might me. Did Rushdie
get a cost estimate the involved in feeding Gandhi with goat milk,
groundnuts & his other related dietary preferences ? No, he has no better
substantiation that Sarojini Devi’s hackneyed tease about Gandhi. Is this
fact relevant when we want to assess Gandhi’s relevance as social reformer ?
Regarding (4): I am inclined to believe that Rushdie did not do much reading
on Gandhi before he makes this facile remark. While I might not be competent
to deliver the gist of Gandhism in a few lines, I would attempt it: to
Gandhi, there are no compartments of life that need to be developed &
nurtured according to time schedules. His notion of reform begins with the
person that seeks the reform. Politics are thus not mere congregations of
individuals that pass resolutions & expect others to work for them. Chastity
of thought & action are the most fundamental tools to the one who seeks the
reform. So nature cures that condition the human body without using
medicines & vegetarianism as efficient & non-violent sources of nutrition
are key elements as well in his reform. These are seen as important
practices in ensuring rural self sufficiency. I am not aware of any
experiments Gandhi tried with human excrement. I would treat this as a
journalistic hyperbole on Rushdie’s part. Gandhi’s voluntary involvement in
cleaning excrements was his way to identify himself with the people in the
lowest strata of the society & a diligently laboured reminder to all others
about one’s duty towards them.
I have picked only upon four of Rushdie’s statements. Other statements
deserve a similar criticism. There are even some factual inaccuracies e.g.,
Gandhi’s politial aid C. Rajagopalachari passed away more than 21 years ago.
So Ved Mehta could not have interviewed him 21 years ago.
Gandhi, as we understand him, is a normal human being, who assiduously
applied the notion of being truthful to others & to oneself for the common
human problems and has been partially successful in demonstrating its
efficacy in personal & public life. There is much more to idealize & praise
about Gandhi’s life. I do not think Rushdie has made any effort in this
direction. Also, there are plenty of stereotyped misconceptions couched in
trite phraseology (such as “Gandhi was an efficient Bania administrator”, or
“Gandhi tried to inject religion into politics” (whatever it is supposed to
mean)) used to describe Gandhi. Rushdie has not made effort to clear them
either.
In summary, Rushdie’s 4 page article is a quickly patched up collage from
Gandhi’s voluminous life with the intention of delivering a well calculated
punch line in the guise of shedding light on Gandhi’s “unknown” life. It
tries to collate unrelated facts with the intent of demonstrating
“contradictions” unknown in Gandhi’s public life. He correctly assesses that
the Gandhian ideals have withered away in independent India, religious
divisions have come to mar public life & global commercialism comically uses
Gandhi as a symbol to promote its ends. But when it comes to demonstrating
the life of Gandhi in a spectroscope (as was promised), I would think that
techniques employed are rather devious & fictional at their best. While
complaining about the late 20th century reduction of Gandhi’s life to that a
saint and an administrator of nostrums, Rushdie pretty much resorts to the
reductionisms prove his point.
Hari K Tadepalli
Hari.k.t...@intel.com
kuri...@my-dejanews.com
nor Rushdie are telugus! Some fucking telugu brahminical mAdarchOdh reads
something somewhere, and decides to post some stupid response to SCIT. These
same moronic types have made this group a "telugu" only newsgroup. Then, why
the hell they decide to dump some stupid telugu-unrelated stuff here? Is the
fucker trying to show us telugus as to how concerned he/she is with non-telugu
issues? If that is the case, who gives a damn shit? It would have been better
had he/she choosen to post that idiotic response in some other group. I don't
have the list of "yes" votes for moderation of this ng with me, but I am
sure that this person might be there in that list. Have any of you read
this person's several postings, that ridiculed non-brahmins? This person
is a number one brhaminical mAdarchOdh. I have absolutely no doubt about that.
KS
In article <6rajfp$a...@news.or.intel.com>,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Srinivasd
Rushdie had offended many a puritanical sentiment. Rushdism in english (Indian)
literature is what Hussainism to modern (Indian) art. BTW, Mo had posted jpg
images of Hussain's controversial "nude" Sita in alt.binaries.pictures. Take a
look and it is not a great piece of art, but requires quite a bit of
imagination to put a nude female caricature on a weird looking
transmogrification's tail. Nevertheless, Hussain gave it a title to which
hindus reacted vociferously. Your reaction to Rushdie is very polished yet
similar. Please take that as a compliment and remember to send your write-up to
Time website (if you haven't already).
I think Rushdie is putting in perspective what many consider as the greatest
person of this century. His views are dissentive (thanks for the summary) only
to the extent that at this time we have found better science and economics,
perhaps devoid of good rationale or justice. Obviously, Karl Marx could not be
this man of the century and neither could Bernard Shaw his famous alter-ego.
Given the choice amongst these three, MKG rises to the top given his
"leadership" skills. IOW, Time has to make some "elimination" to arrive at this
one figure. And they need pros and cons. Rushdie, according to many, is already
a "dead man." So he couldn't lose a finger to write this up (no offense to one
my favorite writers). Obviously by doing so he had eliminated *himself*
(Rushdie the famous persecuted writer and defender of freedoms) from the race
Time has initiated. That speaks big of him. I hope Time gave a category instead
of a personality. I believe Freedom is the biggest winner of this century. And
all of those who defended/upheld freedom are defacto winners (I am not mixing
metaphors here with my opposition to SCIT moderation which is a minor pesky
thing I enjoy quibbling about :-).
In sum, you wrote a nice article. Please send to Time and cross-post to as many
SCI groups as you can think of (sc indian, sci gujarat, etc.). I think you may
want to double-check the facts about the "21 years" in your write-up. Don't you
think it is so close that someone could have pulled it off? After all, a man
can speak from his death bed (but certainly not after dying :).
rama.pi...@asu.edu
other hand is grossly over-rated. the famous Hussain horse is more a
status symbols of pseudo art-lovers, IMO. And so are his other works.
Srinivasd (srin...@aol.com) wrote:
: Hari, I am not surprised at your reaction to Rushdie's reaction to Gandhi.
:
:
Muna123
>Date: Wed, Aug 19, 1998 15:36 EDT
>Message-id: <6rf9ff$t8p$2...@news.asu.edu>
>
>
>Rushdie is still a good story-teller, generally speaking. Hussain on the
>other hand is grossly over-rated. the famous Hussain horse is more a
>status symbols of pseudo art-lovers, IMO. And so are his other works.
You hypocratical statement shows your bais, since Hussain offended your
religion, you discredit him on the other hand Rushdie is offended muslims you
gave him credit somewhat.
Let me tell you that both of them are good in their field eventhough I dont I
agree with either of them.
Rushdie have every right to write what he likes to and Hussain have every right
to paint what he likes.
rama.pi...@asu.edu
: >From: rama.pi...@asu.edu (): >
: >
:
: >Rushdie is still a good story-teller, generally speaking. Hussain on the
: >status symbols of pseudo art-lovers, IMO. And so are his other works.
: You hypocratical statement shows your bais, since Hussain offended your
: religion, you discredit him on the other hand Rushdie is offended muslims you
: gave him credit somewhat.
I was talking of the famous Hussain 'horse' not 'nude-Sita' ;-)
: Let me tell you that both of them are good in their field eventhough I dont I
: agree with either of them.
:
: Rushdie have every right to write what he likes to and Hussain have every right
: to paint what he likes.
I agree and stated my opinion.