What's new

Arundhati Roy accuses Mahatma Gandhi of discrimination

Cpt. Rishwat

T20I Captain
Joined
May 8, 2010
Runs
43,365
Arundhati Roy, the Booker prize winning author, has accused Mahatma Gandhi of discrimination and called for institutions bearing his name to be renamed.

Speaking at Kerala University in the southern Indian city of Thiruvananthapuram, Roy, 52, described the generally accepted image of Gandhi as a lie.

"It is time to unveil a few truths about a person whose doctrine of nonviolence was based on the acceptance of a most brutal social hierarchy ever known, the caste system … Do we really need to name our universities after him?" Roy said.

The caste system is thousands of years old but still defines the status of hundreds of millions of people in India. So-called untouchables, or Dalits, continue to suffer discrimination.

The author's comments provoked immediate outrage from descendants and some scepticism from historians.

"Being outspoken is one thing but being so blase about your ignorance is quite another," said Tushar Gandhi, great-grandson of the world-renowned thinker and activist. "It's just an attempt to get publicity."

Prof Mridula Mukherjee, an expert in modern Indian history at Jawaharlal University in Delhi, said Roy's criticism was misplaced. "Gandhi devoted much of his life to fighting caste prejudice. He was a reformer not a revivalist within the Hindu religion. His effort was in keeping with his philosophy of nonviolence and bringing social transformation without creating hatred," Mukherjee said.

Roy's comments are part of a long-running historical argument over Gandhi's views on caste.

Gandhi's stance is sometimes contrasted by commentators with that of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a Dalit who grew up in poverty but went on to become a prominent independence leader and India's first law minister, with responsibility for much of the country's constitution. Roy recently wrote a new introduction to Ambedkar's undelivered 1936 speech, The Annihilation of Caste, in which she called Gandhi "the saint of the status quo".

Mukherjee said Gandhi and Ambedkar "represented different understandings of how to solve problems of caste oppression in India, but each was equally sincere".

The British government recently announced that a statue of Gandhi would be placed in Parliament Square.

Roy's comments come amid a series of rows over the study and representation of Indian history.

The appointment of a little-known academic to the head of a national research body has raised concerns that the new Hindu nationalist government in India may try to promote an ideological version of the country's past.

The Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), led by Narendra Modi, won a landslide victory in May, ending a decade of rule by the centre-left Congress party. When last in power, between 1998 and 2004, the BJP prompted controversy with its criticism of prominent historians and efforts to excise what ministers claimed was a Marxist or western vision from textbooks.

Prof Yellapragada Sudershan Rao took up his post as chair of the Indian Council of Historical Research last month. Rao was formerly head of history and tourism management at a little-known university.

Rao immediately caused controversy with comments criticising alleged Marxist influence on Indian historical studies and western-inspired methods of research. He also told interviewers that he believed the Hindu literary epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, were historically accurate accounts of real events.

Salil Tripathi, a columnist in Mint, a local newspaper, wrote: "His appointment is troubling … because he appears to believe that history is shaped by both faith and reason. Faith matters, of course, but faith is part of a culture, it should not dictate history. Faith is about unquestioned belief; history is about facts and reality."

Romila Thapar, one of India's most respected historians, said she feared "the ICHR may now turn the clock back".

"Historical research in India is no longer limited to trying to prove that the narratives of the ancient texts were historically accurate. We are now perhaps more concerned with what they tell us about our past societies and cultures," Thapar wrote.

BJP officials have denied any intention to change the way history is taught in schools or elsewhere.

The decision in February by Penguin to stop distributing an academic work on the Hindu religion by US expert Wendy Doniger after a legal challenge from conservatives prompted particular concern among liberal writers and thinkers in India. The BJP government last week denied reports that it had destroyed thousands of files, including some related to Gandhi's assassination by a Hindu fanatic in 1948.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/18/arundhati-roy-accuses-mahatma-gandhi-discrimination

Roy is a controversial figure but she has raised important issues in the past. This time though I think she has gone too far. Gandhi was a product of his time, and probably far ahead of most of his peers back then. The second part of the article does raise some concerns though with regard to rewriting history and censorship under the new govt.
 
Roy is a controversial figure but she has raised important issues in the past. This time though I think she has gone too far. Gandhi was a product of his time, and probably far ahead of most of his peers back then. The second part of the article does raise some concerns though with regard to rewriting history and censorship under the new govt.

^^^
 
Certainly, many who criticize Gandhi, point out that he did not reject caste. For Gandhi caste was in contradistinction to the western emphasis on individualism and materialism. In contrast, for Gandhi, caste properly applied promoted interdependence and harmony. Gandhi often appealed to caste solidarity in mobilizing masses.

But this did not mean that he adopted a purely traditional approach to caste. For him caste was not about social hierarchy and he advocated the purging of notions of superiority and inferiority, of dominance and subordination from caste. Caste as practiced in India was for him a ‘monster’ an ‘excrescence’ and a ‘travesty of varna’.

Those that view Gandhi’s impact on the uplift of untouchables positively, point to this and also highlight that by the mid 1930s he was advocating removal of restrictions on inter-dining and inter-marriage. They note that his campaigns highlighted the plight of the untouchables and influenced the Congress. They point to his personal example of mixing freely with the untouchables, eating with them and admitting them to his ashrams, quite radical by orthodox Hindu standards for the time.

However others have stated that Gandhi’s approach to the untouchable issue was “insensitive and demeaning” in the words of the historian Burton Stein. He once stated that “some of the untouchables are worse than cows in understanding.” For his critics, the term he coined ‘Harijan’ – children of God – was patronizing and rationalized the dominance of the upper castes over the God’s ‘children’. The Harijan movement for the likes of Ambedkar did not address the underlying social and economic reasons of oppression and was more akin to a political gimmick. For many Dalits, Ambedkar remains the hero, not Gandhi. In a manifesto in 1973 issued by the Dalit Panthers of Maharashtra, Gandhi was labeled a "deceitful, cunning and orthodox caste-ist."
 
Whereas I admire people with Ahimsa (non-violent) ideologies, and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of them, a few of my discoveries about the man back in 2011 or so made me conclude that at least I would personally never use the term "Mahatma" ("Great soul") for him. Up to that point of my life I was a huge, huge fan of him.

Again, I am myself an adherent of non-violence ideologies and fully respect him for that bit, but sometimes a line needs to be drawn in overlooking some aspects of a person as his personal life and choice, since as it is, some things or incidents from a person´s life aren´t that easy to be dismissed as being personal affairs.

I hope not to have offended anyone as I have tried my best to make my points without n element of any insult intended.
 
Whereas I admire people with Ahimsa (non-violent) ideologies, and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of them, a few of my discoveries about the man back in 2011 or so made me conclude that at least I would personally never use the term "Mahatma" ("Great soul") for him. Up to that point of my life I was a huge, huge fan of him.

Again, I am myself an adherent of non-violence ideologies and fully respect him for that bit, but sometimes a line needs to be drawn in overlooking some aspects of a person as his personal life and choice, since as it is, some things or incidents from a person´s life aren´t that easy to be dismissed as being personal affairs.

I hope not to have offended anyone as I have tried my best to make my points without n element of any insult intended.

No no don't feel apologetic bud.

Can you post some links where I can read myself? This Gandhi did look like he had some dodgy stuff going on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seriously, those who accuse M. Gandhi of such wrongdoings, pls give the source and enlighten the rest of us too.
 
MK Gandhi had some German guy as a friend, however, it is not perceived by many as just being friendship. Regarding this, I would like to clarify that this wasn´t included in the things hinted at in my above post, as I would at least brush that aside as being his personal matter. However, there were some other issues as well.

No no don't feel apologetic bud.

It´s always good if we pay respect to such people with so many followers, whether they be related to religion or politics, or anything, despite disagreeing with their practices.

Seriously, those who accuse M. Gandhi of such wrongdoings, pls give the source and enlighten the rest of us too.

As you can read above, I won´t be able to enlighten you much on this. However, my girl, these are not seen as just accusations. I have read myself some of his admirers justifying his practices as something with which he merely "Tested himself". Surely those people could easily have dismissed these as mere rumours if it was that easy. I have, in fact, never seen anyone question the reliability of those reports about him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From my own reading of Gandhis life I haven't found anything utterly repugnant or disgusting but I suppose different people have different tolerances for some actions.

Obviously somethings were strange and bizarre but may have been acceptable (or understood) in the Hindu culture of that time.

There's good and bad to all people. We shouldn't totally right someone off based on a few eccentricities.
 
.... There's good and bad to all people. We shouldn't totally right someone off based on a few eccentricities.

Due to which the highlighted parts below were included in my first post in this thread.....

Whereas I admire people with Ahimsa (non-violent) ideologies, and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was one of them, a few of my discoveries about the man back in 2011 or so made me conclude that at least I would personally never use the term "Mahatma" ("Great soul") for him. Up to that point of my life I was a huge, huge fan of him.

Again, I am myself an adherent of non-violence ideologies and fully respect him for that bit, but sometimes a line needs to be drawn in overlooking some aspects of a person as his personal life and choice, since as it is, some things or incidents from a person´s life aren´t that easy to be dismissed as being personal affairs.

I hope not to have offended anyone as I have tried my best to make my points without n element of any insult intended.
 
Google Gandhi and blacks of South Africa. Many believe he was a racist.

Yup, this as well. We cannot verify everything or conclude everything for a surety, but I once read that he is literally hated by some people in South Africa. Some say in his defence that he changed his stance on it/them with time as he grew in politics. God knows best.....
 
Gandhi was not god,so ofcourse he had his faults.But his virtues far outnumber any faults he had.He has inspired many world leaders.He is the greatest leader to come out of Asia in modern times and one of the greatest leaders of modern times.
 
Gandhi was not god,so ofcourse he had his faults.But his virtues far outnumber any faults he had.He has inspired many world leaders.He is the greatest leader to come out of Asia in modern times and one of the greatest leaders of modern times.

Amazing joshila bhai, I agree with you yet for some reason none of your posts reflected his admirable message of non-violence.
 
Gandhi is back in the news again.

Nelson Mandela said that the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi had helped to topple apartheid in South Africa. Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie I, was also an admirer. "Mahatma Gandhi will always be remembered as long as free men and those who love freedom and justice live," he said. Yet not all African leaders are inspired by the man known as the "Father of India".
An online petition, which has been signed by more than 1,000 people, has been started by professors at the University of Ghana. They call for the removal of a statue of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi from the campus grounds in Accra. The academics say that Gandhi, who has been praised by public figures for leading India's non-violent movement to freedom from British colonial rule during the mid 20th century, had a "racist identity".
The petition lists quotes from the writings of the Indian leader, in which he described Africans as "savages or the Natives of Africa" and "kaffirs" (an insulting racial slur for a black African).
One example comes from a latter written by Gandhi to the Natal parliament of South Africa in 1893, saying that a "general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are a little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa."

All quotations are from Gandhi Serve, an online resource that has collated the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi.
"How will the historian teach and explain that Gandhi was uncharitable in his attitude towards the Black race and see that we're glorifying him by erecting a statue on our campus?" the petition goes on to say.
The statue is a gift to the Ghanaian government from the Indian President Pranab Mukherjee, unveiled when he visited Accra in June.

It drew criticism almost immediately. Some Ghanaians used hashtags such as #GandhiMustComeDown to echo the sentiments expressed by the professors.
Daniel Osei Tuffuor, a former student of the University of Ghana, has signed the petition. He told BBC Trending that "Ghanaians should be confident in themselves and seek to project our own heroes and heroines. There is nothing peaceful about the activities of Gandhi. Anyone who claims to uphold peace and tranquillity but promotes racism is a hypocrite."
The topic of Gandhi's attitudes to black Africans is not a new topic.
His biographer and grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi, said that his grandfather had first travelled to Africa at the age of 24 to practice law. He was undoubtedly "at times ignorant and prejudiced about South Africa's blacks," says Rajmohan Gandhi.
He adds that, while "Gandhi too was an imperfect human being... the imperfect Gandhi was more radical and progressive than most contemporary compatriots."

Dr Obadele Kambon, who is one of creators of the petition, agrees. He told BBC Trending that "ideally, in its place or elsewhere, statues of classical, traditional and modern African heroes could be erected to enhance levels of self-knowledge, self-respect and self-love.
"In the long term, however, we would like to be part of the global movement towards self-respect and pride that we see in the removal of the Rhodes statue in Umzantsi (South Africa), Colin Kaepernick's protest against the National Anthem in the US, and the Black Lives Matter protests.
"At the end of the day, we need images of ourselves for our own psychosocial well-being and not images of those who called us savages... May Gandhi fall that Africa may rise!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37430324
 
What a shame that a person with such a mentality and unspeakable practices was turned into an icon.
 
Lol I was actually thinking of tagging you:yk

Who in your opinion should have held Gandhi's status in India CC?

No one. No single person deserved to be elevated to that level. With Gandhi, we had one person with such a dark history and shameful activities, being turned into the savior of india and the champion of peace and humanity, when we had far better people with strong ethics and morality who did far more for the country than this fake mahatma.
 
Gandhi is overrated, Bongo Bondhu is the real deal.

Vanga Bandhu :shakib

My dad's collegue was a Bengali Banerjee. He used to call Nayan Mongia as Noyon. He was the only Bengali guy among a bunch of Telugu guys and we used to laugh. He was such a good sport. He used to call all our names too in Bengali style.
 
What a shame that a person with such a mentality and unspeakable practices was turned into an icon.

No one is perfect. As Captain said, Gandhi was ahead of most of his peers. Is declaring Gandhi an icon worse than giving George Bush or Obama the Nobel Peace Prize?
 
No one is perfect. As Captain said, Gandhi was ahead of most of his peers. Is declaring Gandhi an icon worse than giving George Bush or Obama the Nobel Peace Prize?

I see your point, when teresa can be called a saint, then it makes sense that gandhi is called a mahatma. Such is the world we live in, where vested interests manufacture icons to further their agenda.
 
What a disgrace this fake Mahatma was. I used to look up to him. I didn't know he was such a shady person. There is nothing I hate more than racism. It's a shame that this guy is celebrated like some saint of the humanity when he was the complete opposite.
 
Never been a fan of him. Heard about his views on Blacks and what he did to his own niece.
 
Roy is a controversial figure but she has raised important issues in the past. This time though I think she has gone too far. Gandhi was a product of his time, and probably far ahead of most of his peers back then. The second part of the article does raise some concerns though with regard to rewriting history and censorship under the new govt.

Roy is a controversial figure but she has raised important issues in the past. This time though I think she has gone too far. Gandhi was a product of his time, and probably far ahead of most of his peers back then. The second part of the article does raise some concerns though with regard to rewriting history and censorship under the new govt.

Arundhati is a big clown. She isn't even fit to wash the chappals of Gandhiji. Mahatma Gandhi is one of the greatest mass leaders to come out of South Asia in the 20th century, and I don't just mean it in a political sense. He was a leader of the masses and he was interested in the social good and development of society. None of the political leaders of South Asia in the 20th century are fit to be put in the same league as him. The only leaders of South Asia in the 20th century that can be compared with him are the likes of Abdul Sattar Edhi, Baba Amte, Vinoba Bhave( both of whom were themselves Gandhians) etc. But he was unique in the sense that he was both a political leader and a social activist.

For Pakistanis, it should be remembered that Gandhiji was killed because of his unwavering stand in support of giving Pakistan some 56 crores of amount, which was due to it, but which Indian leadership did not want to give. Though he was resolutely against partition, yet once partitioned, he accepted it and went on record to say that though Indians and Pakistanis have been divided let us live united in our hearts since the entire world can never be under one political leadership and political boundaries of some kind will always exist.

He was a pragmatist and yet very spiritual. Though he was a devout Hindu for whom Bhagavad Gita was the central text of his life, yet he was never against Muslims and made all attempts for harmony between Hindus and Muslims. The kind of partition bloodshed that happened in Punjab was avoided in Bengal due to the presence of Gandhiji in that region. He was not someone who coveted any title or leadership and when India became independent he did not seek any political office, even though had he asked for it, none could have denied him.

To criticise Gandhiji is easy, to live a life like him is extremely difficult. Just try a very basic thing - if you are a reasonably well off individual who is used to wear decent clothes, will you abandon them in favour of a simple dhoti for the rest of your life because millions of your countrymen do not have sufficient clothing to cover their bodies ? Can you do that ? Gandhiji made many such sacrifices and yet I see ungrateful Indians freely criticise him without knowing much about him.

People call him a racist for his remarks on the Africans. However these remarks were made when he was a young man in South Africa and much before he became the great man of later years. Should Gandhiji have been unchanging like a stone right from his birth ? Was he not human ? He had his follies and before he decided to fight for the rights of his fellow countrymen in South Africa, he was quite a selfish man as he himself admits. But you cannot bring that past and then say it discredits all of his later achievements.

I will just leave you with a few audio/videos from youtube.

Norman Finkelstein is a well known Jew who is famous for his support of Palestinians and criticism of Zionism. Listen to what he says about Gandhi.


Finally here is an audio recording of Gandhiji from 1931,


There is a Hindi saying for the likes of Arundhati - Jis thali mein khaana usi mein chhed karna. She is a useful tool for anti-India forces. She is nothing more beyond that. An idiot like her doesn't deserve any audience.
 
People call him a racist for his remarks on the Africans. However these remarks were made when he was a young man in South Africa and much before he became the great man of later years. Should Gandhiji have been unchanging like a stone right from his birth ? Was he not human ? He had his follies and before he decided to fight for the rights of his fellow countrymen in South Africa, he was quite a selfish man as he himself admits. But you cannot bring that past and then say it discredits all of his later achievements.

I am willing to discount his racism before he became a "great man". But what about the things he did in his old age..which are too shameful to be written about. What is your excuse for those shameful deeds?

This person deserves to be exposed before indians and the world.
 
I am willing to discount his racism before he became a "great man". But what about the things he did in his old age..which are too shameful to be written about. What is your excuse for those shameful deeds?

This person deserves to be exposed before indians and the world.

CC what are your views about Jinnah? :inti
 
CC what are your views about Jinnah? :inti

Jinnah was a far better person compared to gandhi, but that cannot count as a compliment, as even I am better than gandhi. He finally succumbed to using religion in politics in the last few years, but before that always kept religion at a distance. Too bad he didn't stay longer and left people still debating on what kind of nation he wanted. So a smart and a principled person (as much as a politician can be).
 
Jinnah was a far better person compared to gandhi, but that cannot count as a compliment, as even I am better than gandhi. He finally succumbed to using religion in politics in the last few years, but before that always kept religion at a distance. Too bad he didn't stay longer and left people still debating on what kind of nation he wanted. So a smart and a principled person 9as much as a politician can be).

If i am not wrong bengalis also have lot of love and respect for Iqbal just like Iranis.
 
Interesting thread with interesting posts showing both side of the picture.
 
Gandhi saw Black Africans as uncultured savages.

 
Last edited:
Gandhi is a pretty grey character TBH.. His shortcomings have long been brushed under the carpet to make him the spotless idol worthy of the "Father of The Nation" tag.

I personally do not agree with him branding Dalits as "Harijans". It was simply more patronisation from the privileged UC Hindu male. More than a fancy name, it did very little to alleviate their suffering, to the point most present day dalit communities reject the "Harijan" term entirely ..

And he was a casteist for most of his life who supported the "Varnashrama" system. After some of the meetings with social reformers in southern India like Narayana Guru, he gradually altered his stance on the "Varna System". https://krishnayanam.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/the-meeting-between-mahatma-gandhi-and-sree-narayana-guru/
 
Gandhi indeed was a racist but he also had finer points as well. I think he just felt in his heart that brown people were superior to blacks. He is overrated in the west who paint him as a saint that he was not.
 
Back
Top