What's new

New book Tears apart the Image of Gandhi

GreenFalcon

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 11, 2014
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
7
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
New Book Tears Apart Benevolent Image of Gandhi, Recasts Him as Racist with Hatred for Black Africans
September 9, 2015 | Posted by David Love


Gandhi in South Africa

Gandhi is well known as the inspiration for Dr. Martin Luther King’s nonviolent resistance and direct action. Nelson Mandela even praised him for helping to pave a way for a non-racial South Africa. Not nearly as well known, however, are the statements and sentiments of the Indian leader regarding African people.

According to a new book, The South African Gandhi: Stretcher-Bearer of Empire, Mohandas Karamchand says Gandhi was a racist who harbored a disdain for Africans. The authors, Ashwin Desai, professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg, and Goolem Vahed, associate professor in the History, Society, and Social Change Cluster of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, quote statements from Gandhi to paint a picture of the man in South Africa before his return to India.

Apparently, Gandhi not only expressed racist attitudes towards Africans and classist prejudice towards indentured Indians, but he also supported the British Empire as a loyal servant, and the use of war by the Imperial Army to further its goals, the book argues.

“He served as stretcher-bearer in the war between Brit and Boer, demanded that Indians be allowed to carry fire-arms, and recruited volunteers for the imperial army in both England and India during the First World War,” the authors said.

The South African Gandhi reveals a figure who, between 1893 and 1914, sought inclusion of Indians into South African society and the exclusion of Blacks—a departure from the image of benevolence with which he is portrayed today.

As the Washington Post reported, the book characterizes Gandhi as one who called Black Africans “savage,” and said they lived a life of “indolence and nakedness.” He attempted to prove to the British that Indians in South Africa were superior to Black Africans, who he called the derogatory term, Kaffir.

For example, Gandhi resented that Indians were classified as “Natives” with Black Africans.

“We felt the indignity too much and … petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction, and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics and Europeans,” he wrote.

While delivering a speech in Bombay, now Mumbai, in 1896, the Indian leader said that Europeans in Natal wanted “to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”

In 1908, Gandhi expounded on his views while detailing his experience in prison.

“We were marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs… our garments were stamped with the letter “N”, which meant that we were being classed with the Natives,” he wrote. “We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with. I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan,” Gandhi wrote. “A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”

In 1904, he protested the decision by Johannesburg officials to allow Africans to live next to Indians, writing, “Mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.”

Further, the authors offer that Gandhi had only white friends and excluded Blacks from his cooperative farm.

“As we examined Gandhi’s actions and contemporary writings and compared these with what he wrote in his autobiography and ‘Satyagraha in South Africa,’ it was apparent that he indulged in some ‘tidying up.’ He was effectively rewriting his own history,” the authors wrote.

Author Arundhati Roy, who has called Gandhi a defender of India’s caste system and the oppression of women, has endorsed the book, calling it a “serious challenge to the way we have been taught to think about Gandhi” according to Firstpost.

“This is a wonderful demonstration of meticulously researched, evocative, clear-eyed and fearless history-writing. It uncovers a story, some might even call it a scandal, that has remained hidden in plain sight for far too long,’’ she wrote.

Meanwhile, the Times of India reported in April 2015 that in Johannesburg, a statue of Mahatma Gandhi was defaced by a group of people wearing African National Congress regalia, and holding placards reading “Racist Gandhi must fall.”

The South African Gandhi offers evidence of how white supremacy has functioned, even thrived, through the active participation of oppressed dark-skinned people. Such participation precluded the ability of Africans and other people of color to operate as a united front against racial oppression. Gandhi was not immune from this mentality, even as he fought against colonial oppression through tactics that inspired the U.S. civil rights movement.
New Book Tears Apart Benevolent Image of Gandhi, Recasts Him as Racist with Hatred for Black Africans - Atlanta Blackstar
@VelocuR @Shamain @Akheilos @Indus Falcon @war&peace @syedali73 @Donatello @Thorough Pro @Maira La @Malik Abdullah @Whazzup @SarthakGanguly @ni8mare @levina @DESERT FIGHTER @Zarvan @lastofthepatriots
 
Last edited:
Anyone who cared to do their research would have realized this...
 
I would like actually to read a good article about our beloved Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah as Sep. 11, was his death anniversary.
 
I think its not good to discuss leaders who participated in independence movement in negative sense who were relatively close to our own leadership.

Gandhi_Jinnah_September_1944.jpg



There were various joint movements and cooperation that happened between Gandhi and our own leadership and in light of such we should not promote negativity

Thru various civil disobedience movement and creating a pressure group with our own leadershipthe British did eventually decided to grant sub continent independence and world war also played a key role in it.

The leadership was of quality that they talked about issues on table difficult issues and maintained their grace and moved forward can the same be said about leadership after these great leaders, these leaders clearly disagreed but accepted the view point of each other as representative of an idealogy

We need to move beyond the negativity.

There was stuff that happened during partition which was not predicted before and tragic (Loss of life and confusion) but still we must main respect for the civil nature of relation between the leadership

Conditions in South Africa were "Terrible" , and its enough that Nelson Mendella went thru alot as prove of the difficult social problems in that country
 
Last edited:
I think its not good to discuss leaders who participated in independence movement in negative sense who were relatively close to our own leadership.

There were various joint movements and cooperation that happened between Gandhi and our own leadership and in light of such we should not promote negativity

Thru various civil disobedience movement and creating a pressure group with our own leadership
the British did eventually decided to grant sub continent independence and world war also played a key role in it.

We need to move beyond the negativity.
We sincerely want to move beyond the negativity but some people across the border only understand this language.
 
We sincerely want to move beyond the negativity but some people across the border only understand this language.
I agree with you but shouldn't we only reply if they initiate. But definitely this article is not written by you but David Love. Still I think we should not be like them. We have great morals and ethics taught to us by our religion and our forefathers e.g. Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah who was very objective and kept his eyes on his goal. But one issue we need to respond to the stinky indians (not all indians) is the propaganda they are doing against our national hero Dr A Q Khan. There we need to deal with an iron hand and break their teeth and no concession. But we should leave Gandhi out of this equation as long as they do not say anything bad about our Quaid. Otherwise there is a lot of authentic material about gandhi available on internet too that shows he was a gay and perhaps acceptance the gay marriages in india has been inspired by it. But lets not talk about that.
 
I think we must tone down , negativity and focus on our own country now that we have it

Rather then bring people who perhaps were rather cooperative in understanding our point of view and who had the view on big picture to accept a proposal (difficult) but they moved forward.

Again if it was not for some tragic partition events , and emotions things would have been different.

Note from Wiki

"Ghandhi's assasin felt that it was Gandhi's fast (announced in the second week of January) which had forced the cabinet to reverse its earlier recent decision not to give the cash balance of Rs. 550 million to Pakistan on 13 January 1948. (The Government of India had already given Pakistan the first installment of Rs. 200 million as per their agreement to give Pakistan Rs. 750 million in the division of balance money upon partition. However, in March 1948, the cabinet of Indian government decided to withhold the second installment Godse, Apte and their friends felt that this was appeasing Pakistani Muslims at the expense of Hindus in India. This decision of Gandhi and Nehru had also caused Vallabhbhai Patel to submit his resignation.Interestingly, Gandhi's fast was for the restoration of Hindu-Muslim peace and continued for three days after the cabinet announced its decision to give the money to Pakistan."

Moving on


I think the biggest lesson we must take from Ghandhi/Jinnah 1944 talks is that the two leaders discussed difficult matters but they understood the point of view of each other and made a practical working solution of two states, as its seen in picture images of the talks

Gandhi endorsed idea of positive relations with state of Jinnah which is why he himself was killed.

The same can't be stated about present leadership so we should appreciate the positive dialogues of past leaders and we can certainly learn great deal with the interactions of the great politicians of past


I don't think Gandhi was racist as mentioned in book, he was not racist as he understood the point of view of other party and bother leaders had decided to maintain positive peaceful cooperation post partition

Plus why would he be racist against black? When he himself questioned the status qou all the time equality. Gandhi himself was colored person.

I think Gandhi/M.Ali Jinnah etc had great leadership qualities and thus I cannot say anything negative about Mr Gandhi
 
Last edited:
I think we must tone down , negativity and focus on our own country now that we have it

Rather then bring people who perhaps were rather cooperative in understanding our point of view and who had the view on big picture to accept a proposal (difficult) but they moved forward.

Again if it was not for some tragic partition events , and emotions things would have been different.
I agree with you but in a way it is not a nightmare to read the facts. After all this article has not been written by any Pakistani. But still I would say we should initiate but on a public forum where indians are also present and it can hurt their feelings. Still it is good to know the facts and realities of the so called leaders who are bagging more than what they deserve but in a private manner.
 
I have been thru Pakistani Education system and I know exactly how "partial" the education system is about history in Pakistan. There is 0% coverage of leaders during the partition and focus is primarily on the Muslim League leadership.

And I am not surprised at the lack of respect for general leadership on Indian side even when it is a fact that both the Muslim & Indian leadership participated on joint movements to put pressure on British government for liberation.

In our education system , there is barely any coverage on correspondence between leaders, and the view points and general geo political status of world during first world war an second world war.

Our education , teaches us

Date of birth for Qauid-e-Azam, and then that 1 poetic stanza used in speeches
Date of birth for Illama Iqbal

Fast forward creation of Muslim League

Fast forward 1943

Fast forward 1947

Bam Pakistan was formed however the education / history does not covers various times leadership sat together on Joint issues and successfully worked on various movements and joint focus groups.

All the complex issues are generally skipped in chapters of education system

However the reality was that the leadership of that time , worked with various other leaders of the time which showed great amount of mutual respect as seen in 1944 talks


After Gandhi's assassination
"The loss to the Dominion of India is irreparable, and it will be very difficult to fill the vacuum created by the passing away of such a great man at this moment"
- Jinnah speaking after Gandhi's assassination




Mr%20Jinnah%27s%20statement%20on%20the%20assassination%20of%20Mr%20Gandhi_thumb%5B9%5D.jpg



So if Quid-e Azam, considered Mr Gandhi a respectful leader and politician which shows in his images and statements , shows you how far is the understanding of present day generation on realities of the past becasue we don't understand how closely the leaders of the past worked with each other
 
Last edited:
You are saying as if every Indian really cares how Godly he is...It is because of him, what the post indepence India is still paying the price...We have least interest to understand what he was in Africa...You can assume whatever suits to your emotion..
 
I have been thru Pakistani Education system and I know exactly how "partial" the education system is about history in Pakistan. There is 0% coverage of leaders during the partition and focus is primarily on the Muslim League leadership.

And I am not surprised at the lack of respect for general leadership on Indian side even when it is a fact that both the Muslim & Indian leadership participated on joint movements to put pressure on British government for liberation.

In our education system , there is barely any coverage on correspondence between leaders, and the view points and general geo political status of world during first world war an second world war.

Our education , teaches us

Date of birth for Qauid-e-Azam, and then that 1 poetic stanza used in speeches
Date of birth for Illama Iqbal

Fast forward creation of Muslim League

Fast forward 1943

Fast forward 1947

Bam Pakistan was formed however the education / history does not covers various times leadership sat together on Joint issues and successfully worked on various movements and joint focus groups.

All the complex issues are generally skipped in chapters of education system

However the reality was that the leadership of that time , worked with various other leaders of the time which showed great amount of mutal respect as seen in 1944 talks
Well in UAE, I studied in Pakistani school and got a good picture of Pakistan Movement and it actually started with David Hume founding Congress, Mrs Annie Besant founding home rule league, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's reforms and movement for education, creation of Ali Garh, Muhammad Ali Jinnah joining Congress and acting like bridge between hindus and muslims until 1919 when he became exclusively member of AIML.....So it seems you and me read some different books or you just skipped a better part Pakistan studies and just focused on pass marks :) :)
 
Well , I studied Pakistan study book , international school and it was same book used in Schools in Pakistan.

The exams came from Pakistan (Board exams) and I was decent Grade A kind of person

At the end of the Pakistan Studies , our teacher told all the students on last days of school that

"What every kids you learn in the book , is generally diluted becasue it does not covers the historic events that happened and on that that he had a frank discussion with us (his student) and went over many topics"

After that I actually realized that infact the book was quite limited in "Pakistan Studies" as it lacked various details on topic

Example
No detailed discussion on role of Muslims in World war 2, were there Muslim soldiers in world war 2 or not, I leader about it after I joined Pakistan defense forum that we have ww2 cemeteries in Pakistan
No detailed discussion on how the Muslim world view the struggle of Subcontinent Muslims
No discussion on prominent Business folks of Muslim origin during that time and trade or other history items
No discussion on why they never came to free Muslims of Sub continent
No discussion on Life of Qauid e azam personal life what sacrifices he made on his personal life
No real discussion on how the two nation theory emerged
No discussion on impact on muslim psyche post world war 1 after Ottoman empire ended
No discussion on how Muslims stood up for Turkey (beyond few pages)
Conditions in Pakistan post partisan
Explanation of the deaths during partition
No study on the actual decleration of independence what was written on it
No mention of 1944 Gandhi - Jinah Talks, obviously no images either.
No mention on detail accounts of Liaqat Ali Khan , immediate effects on Pakistan , Democracy
No mention of Democracy what happened post assassination
No discussion of the leaders that emerged post independence in Business , Finance , and other sectors
No discussion of why Fatima Jinah never won elections and Ayuub Khan won when every one considers Fatima Jinah and loves her, I never knew she ran for office untill 2-3 years ago
Certainly no discussion on the Bhutto - Mujib problems during 70's and pretext to that

There is no mention of Pakistan's foreign policy since 1947 how it evolved over decades

It certainly did not mentions that post liberation we did not had our first real constitution till 1971
and certainly does not covers that had these wadera class with acres and acres of land meanwhile in India the government confiscated all land from all rajas and maha rajas

Almost all of the joint history with Bangladesh was erased and we only see mention of partition in some chapters

Pakistan studies does no covers any major natural disasters or floods that happened since 1947 in West Pakistan / or East Pakistan and how the nation couped with the disaster what was the approach taken.

Pakistan studies did not bother to cover the national space agency and its program to launch Pakistan's first Rocket into space

Pakistan studies also omitted all the battles that happened between Pakistan and india and details of the battle via Map casualties and approaches by both militarizes as it was not necessary for students I suppose

Pakistan studies did not cover the John Keneddy / US relations with Pakistan nor it was important to discuss the visit of UK monarch in Pakistan post partician

Discussion on Loss of East Pakistan is not debated nor why help did not come from our allies

Our books don't teach us we stranded millions in Bangladesh people who wanted to come back to Pakistan , there is no debate about it

But yes I did heard

  • In Ayyub Khan's time that we have these 5 year plans (Panch Salal Plan) and we are Asian Tigers and inshallah in 5 years we will be Asian Tigers of Asia

Ayyub Sahib mer gaye 60's
Bhutto Mar Sub kuch destroy ker ke gaye 70's
Zia Mer gaye 80's
Nawaz Aya aur Giya - Bach giya
Bhutto ayi - mer gai 90's
Musharaf Aya - retire hogiya 00
Zardari Aya - Rich ho giya
Nawaz phir aya - sher ban giya4


In 1960's Ayyub , ne aek DAM loan le ker banaya tha ya USA grant , after that we had no MEGA project like DAM and its 2015 !!!!



Pakistan Tiger na bana

Tiger Banta Keise ?
  • No manufacturing policy
  • No power policy or DAM construction policy
  • No control on population policy
  • Students don't even know which policies were positive or good or bad ?
  • Banta keise when no one know we were once a Banking Giant
  • Banta keise when no one knows we were once Top Airline in world ?

But now we have Sher's government
 
Last edited:
Well , I studied Pakistan study book , international school and it was same book used in Schools in Pakistan.
The exams came from Pakistan (Board exams) and I was decent Grade A kind of person

At the end of the Pakistan Studies , our teacher told all the students on last days of school that

"What every kids you learn in the book , is generally diluted becasue it does not covers the historic events that happened and on that that he had a frank discussion with us (his student) and went over many topics"

After that I actually realized that infact the book was quite limited in "Pakistan Studies" as it lacked various details on topic

Example
No detailed discussion on role of Muslims in World war 2, were there Muslim soldiers in world war 2 or not, I leader about it after I joined Pakistan defense forum that we have ww2 cemeteries in Pakistan
No detailed discussion on how the Muslim world view the struggle of Subcontinent Muslims
No discussion on prominent Business folks of Muslim origin during that time and trade or other history items
No discussion on why they never came to free Muslims of Sub continent
No discussion on Life of Qauid e azam personal life what sacrifices he made on his personal life
No real discussion on how the two nation theory emerged
No discussion on impact on muslim psyche post world war 1 after Ottoman empire ended
No discussion on how Muslims stood up for Turkey (beyond few pages)
Conditions in Pakistan post partisan
Explanation of the deaths during partition
No study on they actual decleration of independence what was written on it
No mention of 1944 Gandhi - Jinah Talks, obviously no images either.
No mention on detail accounts of Liaqat Ali Khan , immediate effects on Pakistan , Democracy
No mention of Democracy what happened post assassination
No discussion of the leaders that emerged post independence in Business , Finance , and other sectors
No discussion of why Fatima Jinah never won elections and Ayuub Khan won when every one considers Fatima Jinah and loves her, I never knew she ran for office untill 2-3 years ago
Certainly no discussion on the Bhutto - Mujib problems during 70's and pretext to that

There is no mention of Pakistan's foreign policy since 1947 how it evolved over decades

It certainly did not mentions that post liberation we did not had our first real constitution till 1971
and certainly does not covers that had these wadera class with acres and acres of land meanwhile in India the government confiscated all land from all rajas and maha rajas

Almost all of the joint history with Bangladesh was erased and we only see mention of partition in some chapters
On many points I agree with you but it is the same in every country.
Who teaches in schools in USA that federal reserves is a private bank and it is controlled by two families and it controls all the economy?
No discussion why President J. F. Kennedy was killed?
No discussion why WW II was started?
No discussion on who was behind 9/11 and why the buildings fell freely
etc

I mean to say that no govt teaches the whole truth in the schools and they just teach their censored, selective history and it is people's job to find the truth.
Do you think indians are taught the real history?. Why indians are so getting so radicalised that they have selected a murderer as their pm. Why indians cherish so much hate against Pakistan and Muslims? Because they have been taught negative things about Islam and Muslims and especially Pakistan.
 
Back
Top Bottom