How to reconcile Ghandi's racism with the good he did for india

Mrs.Lucysnow

Valued Senior Member
A member in another thread provided this link exposing Ghandi as a racist towards Blacks during his time in South Africa and his identifying with the white colonialists.

Here are some of the quotes he made during the time:


Though Gandhi was strongly opposed to the comingling of races, the working-class Indians did not share his distaste. There were many areas where Indians, Chinese, Coloured, Africans and poor whites lived together. On February 15 1905, Gandhi wrote to Dr. Porter, the Medical Officer of Health, Johannesburg (CW. IV p.244, and "Indian Opinion" 9 April 1904):

"Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension.

Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess 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."

Dr. Porter replied that it was the Indians who sub-let to Africans.

Commenting on the White League's agitation, Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of September 24 1903:

"We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."

Again, on December 24 1903, Indian Opinion stated:

"The petition dwells upon `the comingling of the coloured and white races'. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type."

Addressing a public meeting in Bombay on Sept. 26 1896 (CW II p. 74), Gandhi said:

"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire 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 1904, he wrote (CW. IV p. 193):

"It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing -and most insulting -to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges."

In its editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, the Indian Opinion of March 18 1905 wrote:

"Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much? (Italic portion is added) "

The Indian Opinion published an editorial on September 9 1905 under the heading, "The relative Value of the Natives and the Indians in Natal". In it Gandhi referred to a speech made by Rev. Dube, a most accomplished African, who said that an African had the capacity for improvement, if only the Colonials would look upon him as better than dirt, and give him a chance to develop self-respect. Gandhi suggested that "A little judicious extra taxation would do no harm; in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year." Then he added:

"Now let us turn our attention to another and entirely unrepresented community-the Indian. He is in striking contrast with the native. While the native has been of little benefit to the State, it owes its prosperity largely to the Indians. While native loafers abound on every side, that species of humanity is almost unknown among Indians here."

Nothing could be further from the truth, that Gandhi fought against Apartheid, which many propagandists in later years wanted people to believe. He was all in favour of continuation of white domination and oppression of the blacks in South Africa.

In the Government Gazette of Natal for Feb. 28 1905, a Bill was published regulating the use of fire-arms by the natives and Asiatics. Commenting on the Bill, the Indian Opinion of March 25 1905 stated:

"In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?"


http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm



It was the first time I was made aware of this side of Ghandi and its interesting that it isn't inserted into the over all picture we have of the man. So what how do we reconcile the two images of Ghandi, one as a racist and the other as a humanitarian liberator?

For sure he was of great service to this countryman but has history covered up his flaws in the interest of a more divine character? Does it change the context of his accomplishments?

Here is another interesting article by Yasser Latif Hamdani on Ghandi's thoughts of africans as animals and savages and his thinking it seem stems from the Aryan Invasion theory:

Part of Gandhi’s attitude stemmed from his belief in the Aryan Invasion Theory, claiming that the superior white race from the Steppes subjugated darker races all across Eurasia. Gandhi refused to accept classification with ‘aboriginal’ looking ‘savages’: “A reference to Hunter’s ‘Indian Empire’, chapters 3 and 4, would show at a glance who are aborigines and who are not. The matter is put so plainly that there can be no mistake about the distinction between the two. It will be seen at once from the book that the Indians in South Africa belong to the Indo-Germanic stock or, more properly speaking, the Aryan stock.”


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-3-2005_pg4_24

He believed in colonialism for africans while fighting it at home. Ironic that men like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King and others looked up to Ghandi as a role model.
 
Look at South Africa life under apartheid versus how it is now. If the difference wasn't so obvious it would be hard to make the case for what Ghandi found to be true enough in his time.
 
The references you cited were early on in his life. I suspect his views may have changed over time. But I am not very knowledgable on the subject. Your post was very intersting . I did not know he held those positions. But I guess it would not be totally unexpected given the times and society in which he was raised.
 
Well, it sounds like he just prefers to not mingle cultures, because any time two cultures mingle, they tend to connect at the lowest of their two cultural values. All groups move only as fast as their slowest member.

He mentioned that the local "natives" were lazy, but that's an accurate accounting of the cultural values of that group. A hunter-gatherer culture always seems very lazy to the perspective of an agricultural culture, especially one that's industrial. It wouldn't be because of the color of their skin, but rather because of the teachings of their ancestors.

Aside from that comment, nothing indicated to me that he saw other cultures as being inferior to his own, just incompatible with his own. There's a big difference between those two things.
 
Yes Joepistole I also wondered if he did an about face later in life, I was also shocked when I read through the links. Do you think that there is a need to re-evaluate Ghandi as a man and humanitarian?

Desi: I'm not sure what to make of your post. Do you mean that he made the right assessment of black south africans?

Kororoti: I would agree with you if he was just speaking from the point of view of one being against mixing but he went further than that, he obviously felt that colonial rule was a good thing. It seems he only objected to his group being lumped in with blacks whom he thought lesser than his own.
 
I'm not really sure why it's necessary to "reconcile" anything. Can't I just approve of the good he did for India while disapproving of his racism?
 
Evolving

Nasor said:

I'm not really sure why it's necessary to "reconcile" anything. Can't I just approve of the good he did for India while disapproving of his racism?

Yes and no. The thing is that "reconciliation", as such, isn't so difficult. Human society evolves. Ideas evolve. And with those evolutions, the scope and scale of things change as well.

Society itself goes through this. In American history, the majority culture has had problems showing decency blacks, Jews, Irish, Italians, women, Asians, hispanics, and indigenous people at least. At this point, we're arguing over homosexuals. The lesson seems to be that people need someone to look down on.

An old example I use is a hypothetical guy named Joe. So something frustrates Joe, and he hits his wife. Nope. Can't do that. So next time he hits his kid. Nope, can't do that either. Next time he kicks his dog. Nope. Can't do that, either. Then he breaks his foot kicking his car. At some point, it will either occur to Joe or not that the problem isn't who or what he's hitting or kicking, but the fact of the violence in the first place.

Societies seem to get over one bigotry against people and move on to the next, and in doing so, they wound themselves. The problem is the bigotry.

This is a fairly easy perspective in the twenty-first century. Can we really say the same about British colonies in 1903? Looking at history, it would be a difficult claim.

Additionally, Gandhi himself was human, and prone to that bizarre thing called learning. According to the present Wikipedia entry:

Two professors of history who specialize in South Africa, Surendra Bhana and Goolam Vahed, examined this controversy in their text, The Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South Africa, 1893–1914. (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005). They focus in Chapter 1, "Gandhi, Africans and Indians in Colonial Natal" on the relationship between the African and Indian communities under "White rule" and policies which enforced segregation (and, they argue, inevitable conflict between these communities). Of this relationship they state that, "the young Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions prevalent in the 1890s." At the same time, they state, "Gandhi's experiences in jail seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight...the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause. His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans generally."

And that, apparently was good enough for Nelson Mandela.

I think that reconciliation comes if we take the time and make the effort to learn some of what Gandhi learned. His endeavor was a living process that evolved over time. We might study that evolution so that we do not, in the twenty-first century, make the same mistakes.
_____________________

Notes:

Wikipedia. "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". March 1, 2010. Wikipedia.com. March 2, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi
 
Last edited:
As tiassa said, Gandhi was very prone to that bizarre thing called learning. In 1903, he was a very uppity lawyer, who was representing the educated elite Indian of the British Raj:

gandhi-as-lawyer.jpg


Eventually, he grew out of it, embraced Hinduism ardently and became a champion of the downtrodden masses:

134902.jpg


He was never the man he is portrayed in the west, of course, but that doesn't really matter, since he aligned himself with the lowest caste in India and gave them pride and dignity in being simply human. Hari-jan, he called them, Children of God.
 
Last edited:
Gandhi was a human being like everyone else; in my mind these facts just reinforce the point, for when flaws are exposed, it makes him easier to relate to as a person. It seems all the examples cited are from Gandhi's earlier life in South Africa, I don't know to what degree he held such views towards the end. In any case the benefit of history is we learn from the great examples people can set and cast aside the bad ones, just like Nasor said.

For example, by all accounts Isaac Newton was a complete prick and not someone a physics student like me would want to share a beer with, but from what I've heard he had his own personal troubles and struggles in life, and most of us forgive him of his flaws for all the amazing philosophical wonders he brought.
 
We've all said things or done things at a point in our lives that we probably regretted, I don't see how this could be any different. As far as we know he didn't express those views later on in his life.

For example, by all accounts Isaac Newton was a complete prick and not someone a physics student like me would want to share a beer with, but from what I've heard he had his own personal troubles and struggles in life, and most of us forgive him of his flaws for all the amazing philosophical wonders he brought.

Ya but Isaac Newton is not respected for his humanitarian views on life, he is respected for what he has accomplished in the scientific world. No one needs to forgive him for anything, his personal flaws are not of concern.
 
Ya but Isaac Newton is not respected for his humanitarian views on life, he is respected for what he has accomplished in the scientific world. No one needs to forgive him for anything, his personal flaws are not of concern.
Perhaps but he fucked over Hooke and tried to erase him from history.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074ny9

His personal flaws were not contained to himself

The untold story of how a giant of science was erased from history by the jealous rival who owed him more than most - Isaac Newton. A drama revealing the extraordinary, prolific, bizarre and conflict-riddled life of Robert Hooke, one of the greatest scientists in English history, on the tercentenary of his death.

In science, Hooke was a colossus. As Curator of Experiments at the Royal Society he wrote the laws of elasticity (Hooke's Law), built a radical reflecting telescope and found major new stars, made the first powerful microscope, coined the word cell, wrote the first science best-seller, Micrographia and co-discovered the diffraction of light with Newton, but got no credit.

As Chief Surveyor of London he laid the foundations of the new city on the ashes of the old, playing a vital role in designing the dome of St Paul's Cathedral. Scientists now refer to Hooke as the 'lost Leonardo, yet no one even knows what he looked like. How can such a giant have vanished into history?

New research confirms that Hooke stated an inverse square law of gravitation years before Newton's legendary Principia. However, he not only got no credit but also became the target of the most protracted, vitriolic campaign of character assassination in the history of science.

The main plot of the film presents a disturbing portrait of the dark side of Isaac Newton, revealing for the first time how heavily he borrowed from Hooke and how, after fermenting in neurotic isolation, he conspired to have his reputation destroyed and his memory erased from history.
 
People are a mixed bag and even good people may not manage to extricate themselves from cultural biases. I mean how many
'great men' were probably, by todays standards sexist?
 
I think the problem is not so much what people are, rather it is how they are portrayed.

No one ever focuses on the issues of "manliness" Gandhi had and they completely misrepresent his stance on satyagraha and violence.

Image and Reality
 
Well some of his asking women, I think some rather young, to sleep with him to test his celebacy was a little ookie.
 
Back
Top