I'm not sure what version to trust on that particular story[1], but read on. It's more an attack on the movie (and an establishment's propaganda) than on the man.
I'm Indian, and I grew up steeped in the legend of Gandhi. I've always had a close identification with him. His birthday is adjacent to mine, and I used to wear these round glasses as an adolescent. I say these things to show that I should dislike this essay. And yet I find myself unable to. It's a good, balanced, exquisitely written essay.
And having read it and pondered it and enjoyed it I find my opinion of Gandhi hasn't materially changed. He had the hustle of an entrepreneur.
"Gandhi was erratic, irrational, tyrannical, obstinate. He sometimes verged on lunacy. He believed in a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant. He worshipped cows. But I will say this: he was brave. He feared no one."
Even the attack on Hinduism is interesting (I assume that's the part http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2409364 referred to as looney-land. I call it 'things you can't say'). It's cathartic to find that there's as much to criticize about Hinduism as about any of the other major religions, something I hadn't quite focused on until now. Perhaps I'm losing my roots.
I'm glad you said it first. This is a REALLY well written essay. The writer obviously knows something about Ghandi. He has clearly read much of the man's letters, knows who he associated with, has read several biographies, and seems to know the time period like the back of his hand.
I will politely disagree, from his repeated mention of V.S.Naipaul and also his suggestion to read his books at the end, it seems the writer had a conviction and then just decided to justify himeslf by reading and quoting material which suited his point of view.
The article throughout seemed written by a british apologist and if someone was to form an opinion of the british rule in india entirely upon this article it would seem that british committed no atrocities at all on India post the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919 due to the deep guilt that the incident inflicted on them. So i am uncomfortable accepting the fact that this article was written by a well-reasoned individual.
Without meaning to indulge in conversational terrorism (http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html, nit-picking), I don't think you meant 'at pains' where you used it.
> I'm not sure what version to trust on that particular story[1]
WTF? How do the Mad Men citations relate to this?
> It's a good, balanced, exquisitely written essay.
The distortions in the first anecdote of the essay show that it's anything but balanced, and not good by any set of values which holds the truth in high regard. I can't really see the exquisiteness of the writing, but I don't really see how that relates, either.
"WTF? How do the Mad Men citations relate to this?"
"Mr. Campbell, who cares."
<shocked pause>
"What?"
"Who *cares*? Even if this were true, who cares?"
Perhaps you had to see it in context. Anyway, I was trying to say I don't know what version to trust, and it doesn't seem that important to me. It's super easy to distort incidents from people's lives where just a couple of people were involved. All you have is hearsay.[1]
"The distortions in the first anecdote of the essay show that it's anything but balanced."
I said balanced, not truthful. The essay interleaves harsh criticism with things like, "more complex.. more interesting than the character shown on the screen," "supported the empire ardently in no fewer than three wars.. with the most extreme zeal" (which didn't strike me as criticism), "a leader looking for a cause". I think the essay has a tone of admiration for the man just beneath the surface. And given the harsh tone, the things he's not able to claim are equally remarkable. Really, you couldn't find anything better than that he changed his mind? That's pretty awesome over a whole lifetime. So he was blind to the plight of non-indians? Lincoln would be racist by today's standards.
To me the essay didn't claim a neutral point of view, so I didn't expect facts. I expected interpretation. I was not disappointed.
[1] The second link was just for fault tolerance. Who knows how long a link from hark.com will continue working.
I'm Indian, and I grew up steeped in the legend of Gandhi. I've always had a close identification with him. His birthday is adjacent to mine, and I used to wear these round glasses as an adolescent. I say these things to show that I should dislike this essay. And yet I find myself unable to. It's a good, balanced, exquisitely written essay.
And having read it and pondered it and enjoyed it I find my opinion of Gandhi hasn't materially changed. He had the hustle of an entrepreneur.
"Gandhi was erratic, irrational, tyrannical, obstinate. He sometimes verged on lunacy. He believed in a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant. He worshipped cows. But I will say this: he was brave. He feared no one."
Even the attack on Hinduism is interesting (I assume that's the part http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2409364 referred to as looney-land. I call it 'things you can't say'). It's cathartic to find that there's as much to criticize about Hinduism as about any of the other major religions, something I hadn't quite focused on until now. Perhaps I'm losing my roots.
---
[1] http://www.hark.com/clips/fcxrvdvphc-who-cares, http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0068895