Sunday, May 13, 2012

Book suggests Gandhi was racist, bisexual

A controversial biography of Mahatma Gandhi has claimed that the leader was racist and bisexual. The book In Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India suggests that he was in love with German-Jewish architect and bodybuilder, Hermann Kallenbach, for whom he left his wife in 1908, according to The Telegraph.  The book, written by, former New York Times executive editor Joseph Lelyveld paints a different picture of the independence leader and activist. The book also disclosed that Gandhi slept in beds with young women under the age of 18.
The book quotes from Gandhi’s letter to Kallenbach: “Your portrait (the only one) stands on my mantelpiece in my bedroom” and this mantelpiece “is opposite to the bed.” According to Lelyveld, cotton wool and Vaseline were “a constant reminder” of Kallenbach for Gandhi.
Lelyveld further states that Gandhi nicknamed himself “Upper House” while Kallenbach was “Lower House”, and the Lower House was not supposed to “look lustfully upon any woman.”
“How completely you have taken possession of my body. This is slavery with a vengeance,” the advocate of celibacy wrote to Kallenbach. And the two swore “more love, and yet more love…such love as they hope the world has not yet seen.”
The book, which dwells at length on his work in South Africa, also claims that the Mahatma was racist towards the blacks. “We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs,” complained Gandhi during a campaign for the rights of Indians in South Africa. “We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized — the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.”

4 comments:

Devendra Mallar said...

Most prolly Gandhi was a bis exual who derived pleasure from both s exes. Or he experimented some sort of Nirvana or Moksh via multiple partners.
Gandhi is well known for his fasting spells, rigid self abstinence power theories he may as well be a bi s xual too. Too many men and women especially foreigners shared a very close equation with him. SO WHAT? Most likely it is all a fabricated LIE to sell a book. So be it. Why do ppl demand a BAN ON LITERATURE now?

When godmen and prophets are publicly humiliated for following their ancestral customs and culture of their nomadic times and authors highlight them as EVIL to condemn prophets to become world celebrities for daring to criticize and ridicule a religious prophet ..why are the same ppl that sheltered a Taslima and a Salman Rushdie for their evil books on the grounds of Human Rights and Freedom of Speech suddenly disgusted and up in arms over a book on Gandhi.

Afterall they are all books whether they are condemning a Prophet or a Political Leader. Execute your Freedom of Speech now and let the world read all books to enlighten themselves.

- Indian

Devendra Mallar said...

Not sure Gandhi was a womaniser or may be because he was from a foreign culture but Nehru was certainly and even romancing with Mrs. Mountbatein without divorced with Mr. Mountbatein. The one reason for India intervention in Kashmir was that Nehru was fond of Kashmiri women and enjoyed a lot with Sheikh Abdullah.

These people were above the problems to common men and ran the independence agitation sweetly enjoying with britishers also.
- Candor

Devendra Mallar said...

All historical GREATS esp World Conquerers have been womanisers some are even bis exual. Nehru, Jinnah and Gandhi must have been too.
A leader's Personal Life preferences should NOT overshadow his Professional leadership abilities and capabilities to render them ineffective. Some Indians are very close minded with a narrow view while profiling characters in history to judge personal with professional.

Devendra Mallar said...

Surendra Mohan Sharma Collapse

we all know great men have their frailties. we were shocked when we learnt that Mahatma slept with fully naked with girls, just to test whether he get aroused or not, but then that was his experiments with `truth`, but to call him racist is too much. he was not racist at all. he stated a fact when he called negros `qafirs`. but himself he never demeaned them. he loved black men. thought them at par with us indians..the book in question is just sensationlism,