Mohandas K. Gandhi is not generally included in the category of world-class tyrants but properly understood, among tyrants he is in a class of his own. Tyrants are always megalomaniacs but in Gandhi’s case the megalomania was fortified with infantile solipsism.
Only he mattered, and what mattered to him was that everyone did exactly as he dictated. And the instrument he used to compel obedience? The threat of violence. And why should people do what he dictated? Because he wanted people to be good. And what does “good” mean? Good was whatever Gandhi wanted.
The British novelist and lay theologian, C. S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) noted this about the nature of tyranny:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
The impulse to tyrannize others for their own good is more oppressive than the naked cruelties of people who are selfishly devoted to their own purposes. The “omnipotent moral busybody” succinctly describes Gandhi. He had a pretty large segment of the Indian population under his control. He cloaked all his pronouncements in moralistic terms. His attitude was one of moral superiority.
Gandhi was all the time “purifying” himself and doing so not in private but in full public view with great fanfare. The average person, having become aware of some personal failing, may work in private on self-improvement. But not Gandhi. Attention seeking taken to an extreme. “Look at me. I am so humble. I recognize what a sinner I am. And for that I will flagellate myself.” That’s a twisted way of saying, “I am much grander than you — I seek self-improvement but you don’t even realize that you are a sinner.” I think that part came from Christian tripe that he had internalized.
It’s a pity that he did not understand the core principles of the Bhagavad Gita or the Ramayana.
Gandhi suffered from an extreme case of the savior complex. The world was bad and shot through with evil. He would suffer so that the world could be saved. The bit that I quoted above from C. S. Lewis continues:
They [the omnipotent moral busybodies] may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
Gandhi was the perfect father, second only to our “Father in Heaven.” The “Mahatma” title elevated him above mere morals, and the “Bapu” — which means father in Gujarati — gave him dominion over mere mortals as the omni-benevolent father. He was the perfect personification of paternalism ever in human history. The sad fact is that paternalism outside of the family is immensely corrosive to the social fabric. Treating adults as if they are irresponsible imbeciles is not good for society. Of the many character flaws of the man, the one that revolts me the most is his paternalism.
Forget “Father of the Nation,” Gandhi was not even a good father to his own children. I believe one of his children, in rebellion against him, even converted to Islam. He imposed his will on his family and did not allow them appropriate medical treatment.
But a large majority of Indians loved him. That’s not that unusual. “Conserative in everything, the Hindu cherishes even his own oppressors.”[1] Gandhi’s power lay in the dictatorial power that he had over Indians. The British clearly understood the situation and used Gandhi as their instrument to control India. Though their direct control over Gandhi, they had effortless control over Indians. They handled him with kid gloves.
Like most people of his time, Gandhi was a racist — that basically meant that people of different races had different capabilities, with the white races superior to the others. Thus when Indians in South Africa were being discriminated against, Gandhi’s complaint was that Indians should not be treated as if they were on par with South African blacks.
Gandhi engaged in the odious practise of judging people by their group identity. The discrimination based on Indian caste system (not restricted to Hindus alone) is bad. Instead of simply treating all individuals as persons of equal moral worth, Gandhi declared that the oppressed castes in India are “the children of god” – Harijan. I suppose that that implies that other people are “the children of the devil.”
Talking of god, I am stunned by Gandhi’s arrogance. He was constantly telling others what god wanted them to do. I suppose he had a personal hotline to god. He had exclusive access to god’s mind. Like the prophets of the monotheistic religions, Gandhi was god’s instrument, set on earth to fulfill god’s perfect plan.
Gandhi knew that natural calamities were god’s way of punishing humanity for their sinful ways. Following a devastating 8.4 magnitude earthquake in Bihar in Jan 1934 that killed 30,000 people, Gandhi gave a speech that it was divine retribution for the sin of untouchability. Gandhi’s god was killing thousands of innocent Biharis for crimes committed by others. Gandhi’s god was a being with the morals of a mass-murdering maniac who lacked the means to simply tell people to “Just stop discriminating based on caste.”[2]
But let’s move on. Gandhi, as everyone would readily admit, was the greatest politician the world has ever seen — or is likely to see. Like every successful politician, he was brilliant in his hypocrisy. And ruthless. He destroyed anyone who even remotely opposed him. Subhash Bose was the president of the Indian National Congress in 1938 and 1939. Gandhi ousted him. Gandhi could not bear to have his authority challenged.
Gandhi favored Nehru over Vallabh Bhai Patel. Perhaps because Nehru was at heart an Englishman and had his heart set on ruling India. So Gandhi got Nehru installed as the ruler of India. Nehru made sure that the Indian history is written to glorify Gandhi and anyone in Nehru’s lineage who used the Gandhi surname.
Why do I hate Gandhi? Because I hate poverty. I hate it that over one billion Indians have so far lived lives of extreme poverty (and another couple of hundred million more will do so in the future) because of Gandhi’s idiocy, ignorance and colossal stupidity. Without him, India would not have suffered Nehruvian socialism.
I hate Gandhi for the hypocrite that he was — he used violence when it suited him, while all the time claiming to be for non-violence. He made deals with really evil people (the Khilafat movement). He told the victims of the most horrific riots to not retaliate. He told Hindus to commit mass suicide. He told the Jews to do the same. I wish he would have led by example. But like the mullahs who send others on suicide bombing missions but never volunteer to do so themselves, Gandhi preached what he would never practise. He was insanely cunning but not stupid.
Alright, that’s it on this matter. I have written a lot about the evil monster and I should call it quits for now. I now go back to our regularly scheduled program.
{I realize that some fans of Gandhi will be angry with my opinion. I don’t mind being contradicted — but I prefer facts to bald assertions and opinions.}
Previous parts of this essay:
NOTES:
[1] History of India. Edited by A.V. Williams Jackson. Nine volumes. 1906. Vol III: Medieval India from the Mohammedan Conquest to the Reign of Akbar the Great. By Stanley Lane-Poole.
[2] I wrote about that previously — Blaming People for Natural Disasters.
[3] A few details:
Gandhi made it very clear to everybody that Nehru was his preferred choice for the Congress president’s position. … And the nominations were to be made [in April 1946] by 15 state/regional Congress committees. Despite Gandhi’s well-known preference for Nehru as Congress president, not a single Congress committee nominated Nehru’s name.
On the contrary, 12 out of 15 Congress committees nominated Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. … It’s not that Gandhi was not aware of the immorality of this exercise. He had fully realized that what he was trying to bring about was wrong and totally unfair. … Gandhi gave into Nehru’s obduracy and asked Sardar Patel to withdraw his name. Sardar Patel had immense respect for Gandhi and he withdrew his candidature without wasting any time. And it paved the way for the coronation of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru as India’s first Prime Minister.
Atanu Dey : Life is a Random Draw 
Gandhi’s maglomania does not bother me much. After all, to control the sheep you have to be a dog, to feed off them you have to a wolf. Gandhi was a wolf who was eating the sheep that Indian people were.
A lot of Gandhi’s ideas seem to be in line with ideas of different popes. Gandhi was a crypto christian.
“Bapu” was a pretty lousy father as well. He refused to educate his sons and some of them lived a real bad life, one eventually even converted to Islam just to spite his father.
LikeLike
Thought you would enjoy this. Not sure how much is true (on the goat etc. :)), but the basic message is quite logical.
LikeLike
Sanjay. Thanks for the link. I find Mr Osho’s style of speaking quite tiresome. He takes about 10 minutes to say what could be said in half a minute. I understand why he appeals to some people. He is not a deep thinker and therefore his ideas are simple — and often simplistic. What I like about him is that he’s not a hypocrite. He lives the life that he says one should live. Unlike Gandhi, he doesn’t pretend to be a saint. The two big examples of faux-saints in India are SSRS (Ravi Shankar) and Sadh-guru JV. They have perfected their con game.
LikeLike