The saintly portrayal in the movie Gandhi (1982) is probably where most Westerners get their view of Gandhi from.
The book The Gandhi Nobody Knows by Richard Grenier (1983) sets out the opposite case.
This completely demolishes the ludicrous movie.
Gandhi and the Untouchables:
“The film leads the audience to believe that Gandhi’s first “fast unto death,” for example, was in protest against an act of barbarous violence, the slaughter by an Indian crowd of a detachment of police constables. But in actual fact Gandhi reserved this “ultimate weapon” of his to interdict a 1931 British proposal to grant Untouchables a “separate electorate” in the Indian national legislature – in effect a kind of affirmative-action program for Untouchables. For reasons I have not been able to decrypt, Gandhi was dead set against the project, but I confess it is another scene I would like to have seen in the movie: Gandhi almost starving himself to death to block affirmative action for Untouchables.“
The film glosses over the mass sectarian slaughter that followed independence. Maybe 500,000 people were killed. The film dwells on the minor crimes of the British, and ignores the far worse crimes of the Indians.
Did Gandhi’s campaign inadvertently help bring about this genocide? “Although the movie sneers at this reasoning as being the flimsiest of pretexts, I cannot imagine an impartial person studying the subject without concluding that concern for Indian religious minorities was one of the principal reasons Britain stayed in India as long as it did. When it finally withdrew, blood-maddened mobs surged through the streets from one end of India to the other, the majority group in each area, Hindu or Muslim, slaughtering the defenseless minority without mercy … Blood-crazed Hindus, or Muslims, ran through the streets with knives, beheading babies, stabbing women, old people. Interestingly, our movie shows none of this on camera … All we see is the aged Gandhi, grieving, and of course fasting, at these terrible reports of riots. And, naturally, the film doesn’t whisper a clue as to the total number of dead, which might spoil the mood somehow.”
Did he even delay independence? “Did he at least “get the British out of India”? Some say no. India, in the last days of British Raj, was already largely governed by Indians (a fact one would never suspect from this movie), and it is a common view that without this irrational, wildly erratic holy man the transition to full independence might have gone both more smoothly and more swiftly.”
On Gandhi’s lack of understanding of human nature:
Gandhi’s “non-violence” appeal worked with the British, but not with his own people, who ignored Gandhi and slaughtered maybe 500,000 people after the British left. Non-violence “as can be seen, then, had an absolutely tremendous moral effect when used against Britain, but not only would it not have worked against Nazi Germany … but, the crowning irony, it had virtually no effect whatever when Gandhi tried to bring it into play against violent Indians.”
As it looked like Hitler might win the war, Gandhi “wrote furiously to the Viceroy of India: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.“”
Gandhi was a loony:
Like Castro or de Valera, Gandhi wanted everyone to be poor: “Another of Gandhi’s most powerful obsessions … was his visceral hatred of the modern, industrial world. He even said, more than once, that he actually wouldn’t mind if the British remained in India, to police it, conduct foreign policy, and such trivia, if it would only take away its factories and railways. And Gandhi hated, not just factories and railways, but also the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, the airplane. … Gandhi’s view of the good society, about which he wrote ad nauseam, was an Arcadian vision set far in India’s past. It was the pristine Indian village, where, with all diabolical machinery and technology abolished – and with them all unhappiness – contented villagers would hand-spin their own yarn, hand-weave their own cloth, serenely follow their bullocks in the fields .. in the time-hallowed Hindu way.”
And he was a grade-A sexual and religious loony. “Gandhi was a truly fanatical opponent of sex for pleasure, and worked it out carefully that a married couple should be allowed to have sex three or four times in a lifetime, merely to have children and favored embodying this restriction in the law of the land.”
Why Do India’s Dalits [Untouchables] Hate Gandhi? by Thomas C. Mountain. “Most readers are familiar with Gandhi’s great hunger strike .. in 1933. The matter which Gandhi was protesting .. was the inclusion in the draft Indian Constitution .. that reserved the right of Dalits [Untouchables] to elect their own leaders. … Having spent his life overcoming caste based discrimination, Dr. Ambedkar had come to the conclusion that the only way Dalits could improve their lives is if they had the exclusive right to vote for their leaders, that a portion or reserved section of all elected positions were only for Dalits and only Dalits could vote for these reserved positions. Gandhi was determined to prevent this and went on hunger strike to change this article in the draft constitution. After many communal riots, where tens of thousands of Dalits were slaughtered, and with a leap in such violence predicted if Gandhi died, Dr. Ambedkar agreed, with Gandhi on his death bed, to give up the Dalits right to exclusively elect their own leaders and Gandhi ended his hunger strike.”
Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi.
Master of moral relativism, by Yaacov Lozowick, September 1, 2004, attacks the anti-Israel idiot Arun Gandhi. “Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolent resistance against an oppressor is surely one of the most admirable political phenomena of the 20th century. Yet ultimately his success lay in his choice of oppressor. … The Nazi, Soviet, Khmer Rouge, and Hutu genocidists never allowed the passivity of their victims to slow them down”
We insubordinate people – Sarah Honig, September 10, 2004, on the idiotic Arun Gandhi and his equally idiotic grandfather.
Jewish Identity Can’t Depend on Violence, a vile screed by Arun Gandhi, Jan 2008, where he attacks Jews for not “forgiving” and “moving on” from the Holocaust: “It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.“ Speak for yourself you obnoxious man. You don’t speak for me.
Gandhi actually says “the Jews” are the problem: “We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.”
“Holier Than Thou” (2005) by Penn and Teller takes on Gandhi.
“A story about Mahatma Gandhi has been circulating for years. After being given a tour of Great Britain, he was asked in Parliament what he thought of British civilization. Gandhi’s answer: that it might be a good idea. The story is hard to trace to its source and may be apocryphal. Even so, that reply – revealing little wit and even less wisdom – aptly sums up Gandhi’s ingratitude, hypocrisy, arrogance and incomprehension.”
– The brilliant Ibn Warraq in Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy.