Jump to content

About Gandhi - Is this true?


rkt.india

Recommended Posts

 

Quote


On Gandhi’s Sexual Abuse of Girls in his Ashram

Note: This article was first published on Youth ki Awaaz and many people asked about the source of the letter to Gandhi that I have quoted here. It is from a collection of Gandhi’s letters which have been compiled into a book titled “Mahatma Gandhi’s Letters on Brahmacharya, Sexuality and Love” by Girja Kumar (Vitasta Publishing, 2011). More detailed citations and references are in the chapter on Gandhi in my book “Sex and Power: Defining History, Shaping Societies,” [pages 265-281, Penguin Books, 2009].

 

It is a fact. Gandhi had young women in his ashram, some of them still teenagers, one of them his own grand-niece (Manu Gandhi), sleep naked with him in his bed at night. This was an aspect of Gandhi that I had not read about before, and it surprised me at first. I was researching for my book “Sex and Power” which looks at the history of sex and sexuality in India, and it was important for me to investigate this further.

 

My initial tendency was to regard this as hearsay but then some of the biographies confirmed it as fact, and also hurriedly dismissed it as something that we all apparently should accept as the eccentricities of ‘great men! That’s not a logical argument for me and so I began to dig into archives for more information till a complete picture emerged. And that picture upset me. I saw Gandhi as a classic example of a sexual predator — a man who uses his position of power to manipulate and sexually exploit the people he directly controls.

 

Most angering for me, was reading about the psychological and emotional trauma of the girls and women who he used for his ‘experiments’which is what he called these incidents. The word ‘psychotic’ repeatedly came up in various documents with regards to these women’s psychological state. The women, most of whom were in their late teens or early twenties (not surprisingly, given he could have ‘experimented’ with the older women or even his own wife!) were described as depressed and weeping, and seemed to be completely in his control. Besides this, some of the archival references lead me to believe that Gandhi may well have been practicing the traditional, historic form of Indian celibacy which hinges on one thing only — and that is control of ejaculation. Everything else is permitted.

 

What I could not understand is why school texts and biographies have selectively edited out this information because it was a big and explosive aspect of the inner dynamics of the Gandhi ashram and its inmates for the last 10 years of Gandhi’s life. It eventually led to the partial break-up of his inner-core circle.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares? He was a human being at the end of the day. MLK Jnr allegedly had affairs with numerous Younger women and was known to take part in orgies.

Barak Obama for all his peace talks bombed middle East to smithereens.

Winston Churchill, the darling of Great Britain was a racist b@stard who was directly responsible for millions of innocent deaths of Bengalis who perished in the famine of 1940s.

 

Point is these human beings despite all their flaws stood for the principles they fought for, guiding the generations to come. We are not Gods. Nobody is perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Who cares? He was a human being at the end of the day. MLK Jnr allegedly had affairs with numerous Younger women and was known to take part in orgies.

Barak Obama for all his peace talks bombed middle East to smithereens.

Winston Churchill, the darling of Great Britain was a racist b@stard who was directly responsible for millions of innocent deaths of Bengalis who perished in the famine of 1940s.

 

Point is these human beings despite all their flaws stood for the principles they fought for, guiding the generations to come. We are not Gods. Nobody is perfect.

Taking advantage of your position to exploit others is a huge character flaw. 

When the flaw includes exploitation of young kids ,young people or people with less power, who may not have a choice of refusing, it is criminal behavior.

 

If Gandhi lived in these times, he would be called a sexual offender like some of the babas are being called out .

 

No body is perfect....that does not justify criminal abusive behavior.

 

Edited by beetle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beetle said:

Taking advantage of your position to exploit others is a huge character flaw. 

When the flaw includes exploitation of young kids of young people who may not have a choice of refusing, it is criminal behavior.

 

If Gandhi lived in these times, he would be called a sexual offender like some of the babas are being called out .

 

No body is perfect....that does not justify criminal abusive behavior.

 

Different times. Can't judge a person belonging to different era on today's moral compass. By your logic then Krishna would be a serial stalker who regularly sexually harassed teenage girls for fun, Ram would be a bigot with patriarchal mindset who couldn't trust his wife, Buddha would be a hypocrite and loser who abandoned his family, Mohammed would be well we all know it to repeat here etc etc 

 

And I doubt if these things about Gandhi are really true and frankly I couldn't be bothered to search. His legacy would live on for generations to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stradlater said:

Different times. Can't judge a person belonging to different era on today's moral compass. By your logic then Krishna would be a serial stalker who regularly sexually harassed teenage girls for fun, Ram would be a bigot with patriarchal mindset who couldn't trust his wife, Buddha would be a hypocrite and loser who abandoned his family, Mohammed would be well we all know it to repeat here etc etc 

 

And I doubt if these things about Gandhi are really true and frankly I couldn't be bothered to search. His legacy would live on for generations to come.

Bilkul sahi .

Krishna...if the girls did not enjoy the teasing then it was harrasment .if they enjoyed then it was flirting.

 

Ram...there is no doubt  about the bigotry involved.

 

Budhha ...yes, he abandoned his wife and newborn child, that makes him an escapist .....like a lot of yogis.If people want to become yogis, don't marry and definetely don't have kids.

 

Mohammad....sex with a child makes him a pedophile.

 

Gandhi.....a sexual harraser and abuser.

 

Some things can be excused as different times but some are too serious to be defended as acts done in different times.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, beetle said:

Bilkul sahi .

Krishna...if the girls did not enjoy the teasing then it was harrasment .if they enjoyed then it was flirting.

 

Ram...there is no doubt  about the bigotry involved.

 

Budhha ...yes, he abandoned his wife and newborn child, that makes him an escapist .....like a lot of yogis.If people want to become yogis, don't marry and definetely don't have kids.

 

Mohammad....sex with a child makes him a pedophile.

 

Gandhi.....a sexual harraser and abuser.

 

Some things can be excused as different times but some are too serious to be defended as acts done in different times.

 

 

 

Fair enough if you think that way. At least you aren't a hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possible. Everything we learnt from school has to be taken with a grain of salt. His letters to close "friends" reveal homoerotic passages. He could be a paedophile as well. He may have been a freak. Never liked his pacifist teachings to be honest but this omg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beetle said:

Bilkul sahi .

Krishna...if the girls did not enjoy the teasing then it was harrasment .if they enjoyed then it was flirting.

 

Ram...there is no doubt  about the bigotry involved.

 

Budhha ...yes, he abandoned his wife and newborn child, that makes him an escapist .....like a lot of yogis.If people want to become yogis, don't marry and definetely don't have kids.

 

Mohammad....sex with a child makes him a pedophile.

 

Gandhi.....a sexual harraser and abuser.

 

Some things can be excused as different times but some are too serious to be defended as acts done in different times.

 

 

 

When Siddharth left home, his father and the kingdom were there to protect her and their child. Yes, it looks like escapism, but it is different from escaping from responsibilities. His wife and child Rahula are well take care of by the enormous wealth his family is born in. If you are telling me why he did marry, he did not know that he will be that disturbed by what he got to see (i.e. the suffering) and resolved to make a change, resolved to find a way to alleviate this suffering. And he succeeded too in his mission and helped the humanity to overcome suffering. If someone calls that "escapism", I don't agree with that. 

If you are giving example of what was considered wrong then and now are different, I agree with that point. Ethics change over a period of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Garuda said:

Possible. Everything we learnt from school has to be taken with a grain of salt. His letters to close "friends" reveal homoerotic passages. He could be a paedophile as well. He may have been a freak. Never liked his pacifist teachings to be honest but this omg.

Possible? 

 

These experiments were not some kind of secrets revealed by some investigative agencies. Gandhi didn't hide it. He wrote about it in his book and everyone knew it back then too. 

 

Not saying that it makes anything right, but he didn't force anyone. 

 

But the critics on internet try to paint it as some kind of revelation by their fact finding mission. I have noticed this trend in last few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2018 at 6:18 PM, sarcastic said:

When Siddharth left home, his father and the kingdom were there to protect her and their child. Yes, it looks like escapism, but it is different from escaping from responsibilities. His wife and child Rahula are well take care of by the enormous wealth his family is born in. If you are telling me why he did marry, he did not know that he will be that disturbed by what he got to see (i.e. the suffering) and resolved to make a change, resolved to find a way to alleviate this suffering. And he succeeded too in his mission and helped the humanity to overcome suffering. If someone calls that "escapism", I don't agree with that. 

If you are giving example of what was considered wrongi then and now are different, I agree with that point. Ethics change over a period of time. 

I mentioned my opinion on it because I was asked about it by the poster.

 

A kingdom and a grandfather cannot replace a husband and father. He may have had his reason of greater good , but that does not change the fact that he abandoned his role of a husband and father . He wronged his wife and child even if they were well taken care of.

Edited by beetle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, beetle said:

I mentioned my opinion on it because I was asked about it by the poster.

 

A kingdom and a grandgather cannot replace a husband and father. He may have had his reason of greater good , but that does not change the fact that he abandoned his role of a husband and father . He wronged his wife and child even if they were well taken care of.

A lot of people are cowards and fear such backlash and live a lie throughout their life. Some people have a greater calling and it is good for them to fight this inner-battle and do something better in life. It is not abandonment if they are taken care of. 

 

Who knows, if he had stayed back, he would have been a lousy husband and a bad father and tormented their whole life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

A lot of people are cowards and fear such backlash and live a lie throughout their life. Some people have a greater calling and it is good for them to fight this inner-battle and do something better in life. It is not abandonment if they are taken care of. 

 

Who knows, if he had stayed back, he would have been a lousy husband and a bad father and tormented their whole life. 

I find a lot of hypocricy in someone going for a greater calling involving peace and what not while being unfair to the child one brings into this world. 

Wife was an adult and probably could have found another life partner ( don't know if it was an option for the royalty in those days) but what option does a poor child have .

True...he could have been a horrible father, that does not make him better than a father who abandoned his child.

 

Just my personal opinion .We can agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, sarcastic said:

When Siddharth left home, his father and the kingdom were there to protect her and their child. Yes, it looks like escapism, but it is different from escaping from responsibilities. His wife and child Rahula are well take care of by the enormous wealth his family is born in. If you are telling me why he did marry, he did not know that he will be that disturbed by what he got to see (i.e. the suffering) and resolved to make a change, resolved to find a way to alleviate this suffering. And he succeeded too in his mission and helped the humanity to overcome suffering. If someone calls that "escapism", I don't agree with that. 

If you are giving example of what was considered wrong then and now are different, I agree with that point. Ethics change over a period of time. 

It is escapism, clear cut. Becoming a king is not just about wealth and luxury but also a huge responsibility. Back then the relationship between a king and his people was more intimate compared to today, so if he gave up his royal life in pursuit of so called truth, not only he broke the trust of his people but also gave a green signal to the foreign kings for a possible invasion.

 

Also, I believe Buddha was not a real person but a composite character and there are academic literatures which debate his existence like how the existence of Jesus is debated. Because it is impossible for such a naive human being to exist to take a major risk by giving up his throne in pursuit of something unknown. You never know, maybe the story of Buddha was invented by Brahmin priests to give a relief to common people that even a life of wealth and luxury does not bring happiness and a king gave up these to become an ascetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, beetle said:

I mentioned my opinion on it because I was asked about it by the poster.

 

A kingdom and a grandgather cannot replace a husband and father. He may have had his reason of greater good , but that does not change the fact that he abandoned his role of a husband and father . He wronged his wife and child even if they were well taken care of.

I don't disagree with your opinion or the imperfection of his action at that time but yes, it is more of in the area of "necessary evil". I believe that we all have to make hard decisions such as that where we fail in some roles to succeed in others. My point is taking such action is not an unethical action in an overall sense and really we all have to take such steps in our day to day life. I am not defending that action is right but then unless such action is taken, he could not achieve what he did. Same is the case with all of us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MechEng said:

It is escapism, clear cut. Becoming a king is not just about wealth and luxury but also a huge responsibility. Back then the relationship between a king and his people was more intimate compared to today, so if he gave up his royal life in pursuit of so called truth, not only he broke the trust of his people but also gave a green signal to the foreign kings for a possible invasion.

 

Also, I believe Buddha was not a real person but a composite character and there are academic literatures which debate his existence like how the existence of Jesus is debated. Because it is impossible for such a naive human being to exist to take a major risk by giving up his throne in pursuit of something unknown. You never know, maybe the story of Buddha was invented by Brahmin priests to give a relief to common people that even a life of wealth and luxury does not bring happiness and a king gave up these to become an ascetic.

That is only in "dharm shastr" and not in real life. Most of the kings lead very luxurious life and had lot of women. Some successful kings may have also had implemented good policies and wages wars to expand/defend boundaries but most kings did not unless they felt it is very safe and comfortable for them to do that. Most average people will not want to leave all that luxury in pursuit of truth... I know a few relatives who were born in wealthy family and they hardly worked hard to study/do something in life since everything is already set for them to lead a comfortable life in terms of money/luxuries. Average person does not want to work but just want everything free. And if you are getting something free as inheritance, who wants to risk loosing it. I will rather put that he might have escaped something but also sacrificed something much bigger which many average people will not risk loosing. 

 

You second point about Buddha not being a single person is debatable but there is ample evidence to assess that he indeed existed. In the case of Jesus, he was not that popular during his life time or even until many decades. Hence, even though the historicity is debated by scholars but some historical Jesus who taught to the Jews in Judea and eventually got crucified by the Roman government is accepted. 

 

In the case of Buddha, we have the pillar erected in Lumbini by Ashoka (king Piyadasi) in 3rd century BC where he stated that Buddha was born there two centuries ago. Since it is only 200 years since, it is unlikely that people of Ashoka's time will be misled of a non-historical figure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, sarcastic said:

I don't disagree with your opinion or the imperfection of his action at that time but yes, it is more of in the area of "necessary evil". I believe that we all have to make hard decisions such as that where we fail in some roles to succeed in others. My point is taking such action is not an unethical action in an overall sense and really we all have to take such steps in our day to day life. I am not defending that action is right but then unless such action is taken, he could not achieve what he did. Same is the case with all of us. 

True.

No one can be perfect in all roles but then one has to accept the failings along with the success.

 

In a country like ours where we tend to paint heroes only as white and try to brush everything a little different in shade under the carpet....such issues which are big enough on their own are considered insignificant.

 

Like Rams treatment of his pregnant wife is a huge character flaw that is not even open for discussion  and it is brushed off lest it puts a mark on his reputation as the maryada purushotam . 

 

There is no harm in accepting that Gods and heroes were not perfect and take lessons from their failings. But instead even their failings are seen as great sacrifices.

 

Sidharth did not abandon his wife and child....he sacrificed his grahastya life for greater good.We put a positive spin on the negative which in turns becomes an excuse for followers.

 

Ram did not treat his pregnant wife bad...instead he was being a good king by considering the feelings of his praja.He made his wife and children suffer for the good of his praja. Were his wife and children not his responsibility as a king?

Apparently not. One can be bad to wife and kids because they are not significant enough to cause social outrage.

If he had thrown out his parents or siblings....then he would be cursed. But wife and children are disposble in this culture.

You leave your parents or sibling...

You are a sinner. You leave your wife or children....you are a saint who sacrificed family for greater good.

 

 

Edited by beetle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly.....Gandhi will not  be an incestrous child abuser...he was  showing the people his sexual restraint by sleeping with naked nieces. He was not a narcissistic pedophile ...he was a saint who sacrificed. What Bullshit.

 

Edited and posted separately because this is  a wrong of a whole different level.

Edited by beetle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...