Gandhi in The Handmaid’s Tale

Re#29 upman7626

I honestly believe that the problem results more from Manto’s “lawyerly” state of mind – the ability to focus on winning (or inability to focus on anything else) irrespective of whether real justice takes place or even whether the results make any sense! (The same has been said (plenty of times) regarding Manto’s REAL love of his life (Hint: initials MAJ.)!)

Gandhi was a lawyer too – but probably was a lousy one, perhaps – and Thank God, he had more to him than this focus on simply “winning” for his “side”!

I also honestly believe that the average citizen has little clue – or cares much – regarding the fine points our friend here so painstakingly keeps “dropping” all over the place!

There is an old Sanskrit saying, which roughly translates as follows:

Those who are indeed asleep can be woken up by simply making a light sound whereas for those who are PRETENDING to be asleep, even loud bugles will fail!

Sincerely,
Beej.

#31,32

re: btw is #31, the Shia interpretation only? do Sunni`s have a different interpretation?


God, I have no idea!

Left to defaecate? was that truly the reason? so all this brutality because someone left to take a piss and someone else forgot to take them with? that`s some nasty BS.

upman7626 #29
I don`t see a problem with examining or interpreting Gandhi per se. Every generation has to go through the exercise of examining and putting in proper place the received wisdoms of the previous one. The definition of Indian secularism is going through a similar exercise. But yes, as in that case also, pure dishonesty of purpose does not help.

A truely wonderful piece of inspired writing. While it is true that nothing that has been said here was not said before, it was probably required to help bridge differences between communities and promote harmony. Indeed it is true that the genesis of problems being faced by women, maybe even more in Pakistan, can squarely be placed at the feet of Mohandas Gandhi. It is only by identifying and isolating such figures can progress be made. The scholarly discussions on this board provide evidence of that.

Oh Aisha, heed the Dogs of Haw`ab

Subroto,

You are a very astute person.
Yes, all the problems of religion and discrimination against women in pakistan is
because of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi and Nehru should have just stepped aside
and agreed to all of Jinnah`s demands.

Ayesha Jalal - send some more references to the YLH and AS.

Re: # 36 subroto

``Indeed it is true that the genesis of problems being faced by women, maybe even more in Pakistan, can squarely be placed at the feet of Mohandas Gandhi.``

It won`t surprise you to know that the author, in some previous thread, had already blamed the shia-sunni tussle in pakistan on gandhi.

Aisha:

So were probably the views of your great-grand father of the time contemporaneous to Gandhi. Jinnah`s views of faminism, if reflected in his relationship with his daughter, and his wife are used as the basis, they are quite congruent to the views of men of that time, including Gandhi. In good old United States of America women did have a vote at that time too. I think you are being too harsh and loosing objectivity, unless you are ready to condemn and write-off that generation of your great-grand father.

Please show me, where Gandhi has said that he the final prophet on women`s rights and his views are final?

Also show me where has he given a commandment ``thou shalt not change your views, even after I am dead and gone?``

If you cannot produce such an evidence then I believe you are giving mouth to mouth resusitation to a dead horse, who was burnt in to ashes on the banks of Jamuna in Jaunary 1948. You seem t be doing it only to beat him to death again. Is their malice toward anyone in these acts?

In fact I can show you direct quotes from this horses mouth which said he wanted India to open its windows to bring in winds of change and new ideas from all over the world. This failed lawyer no doubt is full of contradiction, so was Einstein and other greats, because they too were humans, if the final prophet who claimed to have spoken the finality of human thought can have contradictions that no fololwer can change. So what is wrong in someone who always said he was a general and not mahatma has contradiction, if anyone the followers of the final prophet should be able to see this human as human.

Gandhi has written so much, spoken so much that one can easily make any case for or against him through selective reading and quoting. It is good lawyering and in selected audiences and selected court it might win too.

You are an example of his views on women`s rights. Yasser often quotes Sarojini Naidu in support of Jinnah. Please read her views on Gandhi too, and compare them to your own. I think you will see the difference. I see your differences with Sarojini Naidu would be because (a) that you are not in the same generation, separated by time and have the benefit of generational evolution is human thoughts and knowledge, and (b) you are being more expressive of personal bias than against Gandhi, than objective. I know that you and Yasser are quite capable of being objective too.

Let ask you, is this how you would categorize your great-grand father whose views about women were no less tradtional than Gandhis? Or would you critcize those who were denying women voting rights in the U.S. of that time? If you do that I would question are you not being less than respectful of those who struggled to bring evolution in human socities? Further I would ask you what would you have done different if you were your great grand father and born in his generation?

I think you would need great courage to condemn that entire generation of men and women. I know my grand mother of Gandhi`s generation played a very important role in educating and empowerment of her daughters (including my mother). Her two daughters devoted their entire lives to impart education and empower boys and girls. Now my sisters have done the same. I see a connection and fruition of benefits of this empowerment in four generation (my nieces).

Agragarian Europe and the U.S. held these views too. In the U.S., among Amish and Mormons you can even today find such regressive thinkers and practioners. This does not mean you will be correct if you land in Utah or Pennsylvania`s Amish country and pronouce a very harsh view about women`s role in modern day America.

BTW, I do not believe that Gandhi is known world over for his contribution to India`s freedom. And I am not alone. I personally feel that Paksitanis think too much about Gandhi only in the context of India`s freedom. I have now lived outside India, probably more years than you are old, I lfet India in 1970. Believe me, India`s independence is irrelvant and inconsequential to the West, to China or to Japan or for that reason most countries of the world. Even Indian of your generation, and I have quite a few nieces and nephews in India, India`s independence is no more symbolic than two dates August 15, and January 26.

The world remembers Gandhi, despite thinkers and believers like yourselves, for developing non-violence as an effective weapon. Five out six major political events of the 20the century had been influenced by non-violence as a weapon. In Yasser`s board I have listed those six events.

India`s independence is over and happened. Your generation Indians are proudly entering parliament and don`t care beyond August 15, and January 26. They are not being disloyal, just minding their business.

Why don`t think how come that Wharton MBA and Harvard MBA and other competent people your father`s and your elder cousins generation are now getting elected to the parliament, and are running ministries on merit and to build the country. and then compare this trend to Pakistan, and question what must be done to make a transition in Pakistan?

To you Gandhi is evil, fine. Let us get over with it. To Indians of all hue and color he was not, but he is not relevant anymore.

Last weekend I saw a movie ``Maine Gandhi ji ko Nahin Mara``. A great movie made by Anupam Kher and Urmila Matondkar. Anupam Kher, Urmila`s father in the movie laments about Gandhi being irrelevant in modern India. Urmila, his daughter is worried how to get her father`s mental illness taken care of. She does the right thing to bring her father back to the reality. All this time she was more worried about her father and not even cared about Gandhi. Two very different generations, living under the same roof, in the same home. Do you see what I am trying to say?

Both thoughts co-existed and will continue to exist. I cannot say which one is wrong in this situation, each is expresssing the view accoring to their generation. Anupam Kher`s lament, and Urmila`s pragmatic concern about modern problems and modern solution are so real. Owever, if the roles were reversed, then I would have said that there is a serious problem - if Urmila was thinking and acting like Anupam Kher, and Anupam Kher was behaving and acting like Urmila.

Thank you.

Anil Kapuria

Aisha

This will fail to change minds.

Re: # 40

good post.

Aisha,

do you consider u.s. constitution to be racist, because many of the founders of the country were slave owners? also there were several u.s. presidents who even owned slaves when they were in office !!!

Does that make u.s. a racist society?

three dates and two slogans

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - January 30, 1948

Mohammed Ali Jinnah - Sept 11, 1948

Mahatma Gandi ki Ja’aye

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

October 04, 2005

Dear Aisha,

Thank you for an excellent article.

Several of my Parsi friends from India did not have high regards for Gandhi, although he was from Gujrat. Those who were well read always admired Jinnah because he was the most emancipated person of his time.

Keep up the good work.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

All interactors:

Just in case you were not watching – or perhaps to put it more accurately – had blinds over those eyes, and missed it – let me quote (from my earlier interact#18) the question that I posed to this woman (with due politeness, if I may add) who calls herself a “writer”:

I hope you will raise the most vociferous of voices in support of the sentiments expressed above by me – and in no uncertain terms denounce the responsible parties for the current status of women in Pakistan – women whose sad status so closely must affect you that you leave no stone unturned andare willing to dig back over sixty years to go for the jugular of the culprit – the Mahatma, of course – alas, if only the REST of the world could see it your way!

And since you so emphatically criticize the dead Mr. Gandhi for being a “saintly ayatollah” could you kindly put some real punch into your arguments and extend your no uncertain terms of criticism to some REAL (alive and kicking) ayatollahs (for example, those in Iran (psst: you know the kind (hint: how does one spell RUSH-DIE!)))

And, as they used to say in that old song –

“The answer my friend,
Is blowing in the wind,
The answer my friend
Is in the wind…”

And the answer of course is:

(Deafening silence)

And are you surprised? Are you, really!

This writer, supposedly a woman who professes feminism as her goal, is little different from her male stooges here and those cowardly jackal-like cohorts – that callous company of clueless culprits – who superbly give the appearance of simulating a level of openness of thought exactly like a high class lady of easy virtue simulating first-rate orgasm – an act which, in reality, all that it represents – and indeed CAN represent is an intellectual harem which can only inbreed – and is only comfortable with its own. Period!

The ultimate form of “penis envy” meets the ultimate safe-sex of solutions – kick the non-violent guy – the violent guys are just too risky – and feel the warmth of victory rushing through – that high to end all highs – that crumb to end all cramps – no matter what time of the month it be!

Individuals committing intellectual dishonesty at this level (in my personal view) rank many a notches worse below the lowliest of those ladies making a living in an ocean of sin!!

But hey, this is the chowk – bazaar, you know, and everything is for sale, and professional integrity does not really fetch a high value – not in these shark-infested waters – and certainly not when one is trying to look TOUGH like a man – especially THIS bunch of REAL men who really specialize in dealing with women, yeah! Don’t believe me? Go ask that lady who got that special salty treat – that flavor of flavors to end forever her own thirst, and through vicarious extension – that of all the other women of that purely pathetic piece of patriarchal prurience!

Will this weasel lawyer ever have the courage to rain his choice words over THOSE people –those paragons of feminism embodied – SURE! Pigs do indeed fly!

So the “brains” of this pathetic excuse for a web-site help themselves to a big helping of that “adrak” and send this baby-face Yasser the lotion to lubricate the passage ahead – with that voluminous outflow from his mouth – the warm-up act to precede the appearance of the MAIN act – the figurative “penis” now in full thrust as exemplified in all its glories through this article.

And thus these morons climax! They hoop, and they applaud!

Oooohhhh….What a feeling! O what a mind-blower! You see, we SHOWED this Gandhi guy, didn’t we!!! Look, how ALL those feminism problems just disappeared, especially in Pakistan!

Therefore, perhaps I should be paying more attention to such “janitorial” advice as:

“Let’s not take some of these bimbos and their boisterous babies too seriously!”

Sincerely,
Beej.

Re: # 40

Dear Anil:

With your permission I like to respond to your post #40 to Aisha.

You suggest that all men of Gandhi’s generation had similar views regarding women. If this logic is true, then in today’s world all men should have similar views regarding women. And you would agree that they do not.

I have always condemned and written-off certain aspects of our previous society. It is not what Gandhi has said or not said that I would like to debate. You must agree that when there is a discussion regarding India with non-Indians (read westerners, mainly Americans), there is a certain amount of pride that Gandhi-lovers exude, whilst Pakistanis and/or Jinnah are mentioned as a jest.

As you have rightly suggested, Gandhi is dead physically. But his values and those who get political mileage out of his values are still around and that is exactly what is being discussed.

Aisha, has shown no malice towards the dead Gandhi. She has only enlightened another view about the political Gandhi, which some of us would like to observe and understand.

You are absolutely correct that this person was a failed lawyer, and until very late in his life he was a failed politician as well. I am amazed that his values does not fit today’s world that is barely 60 years after his death. And some Gandhi lovers have deflected the topic at hand and tried to articulate the happenings of the world some 200 years ago.

By your own assertion, you who have lived in the US since 1970, should know this well by now that those who desire public life expose their values and views about everything, from early childhood. With such a standard, why should Gandhi be an exception?

Anil, your assertion that Indians have moved on and left August 15 behind is completely bogus and cannot be validated. Your effort, nevertheless, is admirable.

Personally I believe that Aisha has done an excellent service by highlighting the inadequacies of a corrupt politician. If you have moved on, thank you. Please don`t waste your time here.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

#40,
Anil Sahib,

Excellent post and I think you raised some excellent issues for Ms. Sarwari to consider and I hope she would respond to them in an appropriate way.

In this subcontinent and many other places like that people are hero-worshippers. Political leaders are considered saints and religious leaders are beyond question. Any criticism or fact finding endeavors become an attack on our heroes and we respond in strange way. Often we consider it important to deride a critic’s religious beliefs, that person’s faith and often the icons they revere.

We live in an age where everything is open to question. There is nothing that is sacrosanct, beyond research or can be kept under wraps. This inquiry and inquisition often opens up some areas that have never been explored before and in the process we begin to question our heroes from the 1500 years ago to just sixty years ago. We fail to realize that those persons and our heroes were initially just human beings like us with many faults and umpteen deficiencies. Some of those faults were just part of the society they lived in.

Their thoughts, then, were as mainstream as our thoughts are today. But the difference was that the things we know now were completely hidden from them. Things were not researched then and many had no idea that developments in human, social and other sciences would bring up new facts. Facts that were not even thought of by people you referred to as our grandfathers or our leaders from the generations past.

Gandhi ji or the Prophet Mohammed did what was there, what was within their knowledge, and what society at large believed as appropriate behavior. What we say and do is part of what our knowledge in our times tells us. We are slave to what we know now like Gandhi and Mohammed were to the times they lived in. If the moral values change and scientific research after we all have died, brings out new evidence that what we believe now in 2005 was totally inaccurate then the next generation in 2050 would probably talk about the non sense we say now in 2005.

This whole thing is part of the world moving forward.

Does this mean that we should stop talking about, inquiring about our heroes from the past? Should we not question Mohammed’s marriages to a young girl and why should we not talk about Gandhi’s regressive thoughts about women and race?

How long Hero-worship would stop us from questioning our political leaders and bring them down to a level which is more understandable and reasonable. Why should we not look at our religious figures and see where their faults were. And why should we confine this query to one sect and one religion or one political thought?

Questioning Gandhi’s or Jinnah’s thoughts and what their faults were or where they erred is important for us and our next generations. When Aisha questions Gandhi Ji’s inclinations in an important area; she has the right to do that and she is doing a service that should be appreciated.

We can argue that Gandhi did not have the knowledge that we posses now or he probably was echoing what was accepted as normal behavior at that time but bringing Gandhi or Mohammed or Jinnah fallacies into open is not a disservice to them and should be a part of our effort to bring them down to where they belonged.

They were just some human who took leadership role at some point in our history, with all their faults and liabilities.

The US, probably the most modern society this world has ever witnessed, is getting over the taboos of discussing Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Still, there are many inconsistencies in their approaches and the society itself. We will have to go over the same path the people in the US have traveled and we should benefit from the insights they have developed.

It is important to humanize our leaders and saints to truly understand what they stood for and what have we gained from their struggles.

Aisha’s great Grandfather should not be used to silence her reasonable questions about Gandhi or anyone else.

Thanks

Beej #45
If you read Jinnah`s speeches you and Jinnah would both weep. He thought a separate sovereign state would free Muslims from the clutches of Hindus and Congress leaders and allow Muslims to take control over their own destiny. But everything that happens in Pakistan 58 years after Pakistan came into being is blamed on Nehru and/or Gandhi.

In my sojourn on chowk I have heard the following blamed on them:
1. Rise of extremist Islam in Pakistan in Zia period
2. Afghan Jihad
3. Corruption and loan defaulting in Pakistan(no really)
Add to that now
4. Pakistani womens` rights

It is mystifying but I suspect the underlying thesis is that Pakistan in its present state is unviable and only if whole of Punjab, Bengal, Assam and Kashmir (and erstwhile Hyderabad state) are handed over by India to Pakistan as reparations for Gandhi`s existence can Pakistanis finally join the rest of the world as normal humans and citizens in control over their destiny. Who knew Asansol, Hapar and Panipat were among the missing links to realisation of Pakistani Muslim rights.