“Great Soul” is a book on Mahatma Gandhi written by New York Times Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld. It has received much attention across the world for its contents which according to its author establishes Gandhi as bisexual, racist, politically incompetent, etc.
The portrayal of Gandhiji in such negative terms is nothing but gross disrespect to his sublime life and work based on non-violence, non-possession and non-stealing.To say that Gandhi was bisexual is nothing but falsehood. He was a man who remained transparent till the very end of his life and who never kept anything secret. His autobiography reveals everything about his follies, accomplishments and continuing experiments with truth.
He candidly mentioned that during his voyage to Europe when the ship made a port of call somewhere in the Middle East he along with the Captain of the ship went to a house in a market which was actually a brothel.
The Captain of the ship came out after spending some time with a prostitute and called Gandhiji out. Gandhiji wrote about it in his ‘Experiments with Truth’ and made it clear that the Captain understood his innocence.
If this incident can be twisted one can conclude that Gandhi as a young man had visited a prostitute’s house to satisfy his carnal desires.I think the author of Great Soul has selectively referred to some paragraphs of his writings and unfairly painted Gandhi in negative colors.
Shall we say that Gandhi was not true to non-violence as he, in his own words, was a recruiting agent for the British Army? Shall we say that Gandhi was a failure as an apostle of non-violence because he supported the action of Indian Army to fight back Pakistan which sent its soldiers in the guise of tribal raiders to wrest Kashmir from India?
He explained that the non-violent method employed by Indians was the non-violence of the weak to get independence from British rule and, therefore, non-violence of the weak would not help independent India to address the challenges it faced.
This does not mean that there is no meaning of non-violence to change society for securing justice and equality. In fact his life and work deeply influenced generations of people suffering under exploitation and thralldom and actuated them to fight for establishing a just society. One of the finest examples is that of Martin Luther King who non-violently fought for justice for the blacks of the USA.
We have to see Gandhi’s writings in totality of his world view which is based on renunciation and sacrifice and his tuning with infinity. If we just chose one point from his writings, which cannot be said to be a systemic work, then we will make ourselves vulnerable to gross misunderstand of his action, the central objective of which was to realise truth.
Let us take one more example. He wrote that more Bhangis, one of the lowest categories of scheduled castes, should be employed for keeping railway stations clean. This line from one of his writings of 1918 would mean that he did not want high caste people to clean platforms, rather the scheduled castes to do the menial job.
However if we juxtapose it with another line in which he proclaimed himself as a Bhangi, then his noble intent and purpose would be seen in proper perspective. Yet another example is that of his letters to niece of Tagore whom he described as his spiritual wife. Any body can stretch the content of those letters and jump to the conclusion that he was in fact committing moral transgressions.
In following the method of the author of Great Soul any great person’s life can be twisted and tangled in controversies even as that great person’s intent and action may be quite in tune with noble values.
Let us focus our attention on two terms Upper House and Lower House which Gandhi used to describe his relationship with German architect Kalenbach. While he described himself as Upper House Kalenbach was referred to as Lower House.
There is subtle sense of humour in such nomenclatures which the author fails to capture. Gandhi had affectionately given different names to different people. For instance while he called Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, who went on to become the first Health Minister of independent India, as Idiot, he described himself as Dictator.
Many of his letters addressed to her began with words Dear Idiot and concluded with words Yours Dictator. These can be twisted to show that Gandhi was contemptuous of women. Is it fair to do so?
According to the review of the book ‘Great Soul’ Gandhi left his wife Kasturba because of his love for Kalenbach. It is factually incorrect and misrepresents the life of one of the greatest exponents and practitioners of non-violence in the history of the world.
He wrote unambiguously that he learnt the lessons of non-violence from his wife who was illiterate. In fact he changed his own perception about women when he saw his wife resisting his male dominated worldview with quiet dignity and inflexible will power. Mahatma Gandhi was with his wife till her last breath in the Aga Khan Palace in Pune. He never deserted her in exchange of something else. His love and liking for Kalenbach was based on the values for simplifying life. Kalenbach admired both Tolstoy and Gandhi.
He donated land for establishing Tolstoy Farm which became the nucleus of our first Satyagraha launched by Gandhi in South Africa. Kalenbach held Gandhi in high esteem for his simplicity and therefore dedicated himself to the cause of such a life. During freedom struggle in India in one of his letters to Kalenbach Gandhi expressed his desire to hug him.
I think acceptance of gay culture in western countries has changed the perception of people there to interpret hugging among males and expression of affection among them as indicative of their changed preference for sexuality which is now sifting from men and women to men and men. Such changed sexual norms will not help them understand Gandhi who remained wedded to celibacy at the age of thirty four and struggled very hard to control his lust and never gave up.
Gandhi followed truth, non-violence, non-possession, non-stealing etc. which are integral aspects of Yoga. He stuck to his vow not to have sex even with his own wife. When he was seventy one he wrote that he found it hardest to control his lust. On one occasion when he was challenged by some people that his commitment to celibacy is skin deep as he was married and he had a family he did not agree with them and said that even at that age he could lead a polygamous life. Such formulations of Gandhi could be quoted out of context to drive home the point that he was man with an insatiable hunger for sex.
Gandhi has often been criticized for his experiments to test his capacity to withstand temptations for sex. He did so by sleeping with young girls. I think few will approve of it. However it is important to understand it from his perspective. It is mentioned above that he wanted to be Brahamchari which meant that he wanted to control all his senses including sex drive. In the tradition of Yoga it is said that somebody who has established mastery over his senses would not find any difference in touching a women and stone. The ideal type Brahmachari would be unaffected by desire for lust and other desires. It has been explained in greater detail in several scriptures of Hinduism.
Gandhi wanted to be such a Brahamchari and in fact wrote in greater detail that a person after having controlled his senses will not be influenced by sexual thoughts and even if he gets penile erections that would not be caused by any desire to have inter course with a woman. After having tried for several decades to curb his sex urge he wanted to find out if he was entirely free from it in a situation where he had the opportunity to share bed with a woman. It was a kind of examination which he conducted for himself to find out his ability to withstand sexual attractions. The fact that he made it open and let every body know about it testified to his transparent approach to life. Yet again he proved beyond doubt that he never kept anything secret in his life.
One small incident from his life which took place after he came back from South Africa to India, underlined his simple life which remained free from wrap and cover. While in Bombay he frankly told in meeting that the thought of a woman came to his mind on the previous night. Those who heard him must have been stunned by his straight forward and candid style of communication. He then said in so many words that thought of woman coming to his mind was a measure of his failure to curb his sexual desire. Who in this world will ever say such things in public? But shall we dismiss Gandhi for such utterances as a mad cap?
Let us take another example. In many places Gandhi wrote that he considered himself closer to women than men. Wife of Jayaprakash Narayan, Shrimati Prabhavati, even discussed her menstrual problems with him in a very frank manner. She used to write in greater detail about the tribulations she faced due to irregular periods and prolonged bleeding. Such incidents in the life of Mahatma Gandhi might prompt some body to dub him as a man who interfered too much in the private lives of women.
The author of Great Soul has missed the central message of non-violence and non-possession which are now guiding principles to save the earth from global warming and climate change and which are causing massive and rapid changes in the weather patterns across the world. .
The interpretation given by the author is based on some select lines from the original writings of Mahatma Gandhi and these must be seen in the context of his famous line “My life is my message”. The author has missed the message and has done violence to the great soul referring to whom Einstein said that he was the greatest political genius of twentieth century and “Generations to come will scarce believe that such a man as this ever walked on this earth”.
facenfacts.com