09.16.07
My Review on Gandhi and the Movie
During the course of discussion on the “How Much Should I Know” thread, Andrea asked if we had watched the movie, Gandhi. I had recalled the movie was a sensation when it first premiered years ago, but I could only remember tiny bits and pieces. So I realized that I probably didn’t see the whole movie, but likely was only recalling trailers of it. While thinking about it, I also realized I didn’t know much about Gandhi at all. The only thoughts that I could muster were that I had heard that he believed in non-violence and went on fasts for peace purposes. How it worked, I didn’t know. However, that didn’t stop me from forming some opinion of him. I remembered (likely from a trailer) Gandhi saying, “I am a Muslim, a Hindu, and a Christian.” That statement had always bothered me about him because as a Christian, I knew that those three religions were not compatible. One could not believe some major/central concepts of each religion and not contradict major/central concepts of the other religions. So I wasn’t all that impressed with Gandhi. Regardless, I did a quick Google on him and found his story fascinating. So I rented the movie, Gandhi, recently to see what it was all about. What I had found was a fascinating story of a fascinating man, and that I had “misunderstood” Gandhi’s quote of being a Muslim, and a Hindu, and a Christian because my understanding of it was taken out of context. In context it made sense. The idea was that we could all live peacefully together regardless of our religions. Very different from what I initially thought. For clarification, in the movie, Gandhi was approached by a group of Muslims (I think that’s what they were) carrying black flags representing their group. Not only were the Indians separated as a result of the English occupation, but India had groups separated within itself such as their caste system and the Muslims and the Hindus, etc. Gandhi believed or hoped that they could all live together peacefully outside of the oppression of the English. But in order to do that they, as a people, would have to be unified. A crucial step was to eliminate their divisions such as the caste system and the fear that one religion was going to dominate the other religion. So he exclaimed to those gathered before him holding up those black flags, “For God’s sake, please put those flags down. You are scaring people with those.” And then he went on with his famous saying that he was a Muslim, a Hindu, and a Christian. It appears his intent was that they should all learn to live peaceable together, not necessarily that they had to intermix their religious beliefs. It reminds me of the Jews and the Samaritans. Jesus seemed to take a similar approach.
Now I realize movies can distort truth, and history books can also reflect historical inaccuracies. But what I saw in the movie has encouraged me to do more research. Although both Brian and I agree that Gandhi’s approach with peaceful, civil disobedience was likely better than blowing the British to oblivion (if they had that option), Brian still wondered if there was yet another way to achieve what Gandhi did. I don’t know. I supposed what bothered Brian about it was even with the peaceful approach, thousands of people still got hurt and killed. And we still don’t understand the part of why he had to become celibate. Maybe all the deaths are not avoidable when we have oppressive, unloving people sharing this planet with us.
My knowledge of the history of India has been pretty non-existent. I continue to be amazed at how much there is to learn, and re-learn. I now have the interest to delve deeper into India’s history. I am particularly amazed at how such a massive number of people were subjected to such substandard treatment by a smaller group of people such as the British, and it was accepted/allowed. I think part of it also has to do with how people divide amongst themselves such as with their caste system (the divide and conquer approach like what seems to be happening here in the US with our Republican and Democrat divisions or more recently the liberal vs the conservative groups). This happens in many parts of the world, it seems, now and throughout history. It happened with the Jews in Germany and Poland, and the blacks in America under slavery, etc. It’s yet another example and lesson that there seems to be something in our human nature that tends to put ourselves in front of other people’s needs and well-being. I think this is why the Bible teaches so much about love. Love is something that we humans really need to learn how to do. In the book, A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya regarding the Chechnyan wars, the author, Anna Politkovskaya, wrote about how many people compromise their values under adverse situations. She mentioned how some people will come to a point where they will allow a person to die in exchange for a piece of bread. That is my paraphrasing, but the idea is that under easy-going circumstances people act civilly and appear kind to one another. But when the going gets tough, the darker side of people, that you never thought was there, comes out. As long as we have people who compromise like that in varying degrees, we will continue to have others harmed from various sources of suppression, be it from governments or industries who want to take advantage of their labor, to exposure to harmful substances for the acquisition of wealth, to withholding valuable information such as non-toxic healing modalities in favor of more costly, so-called remedies, again to gain profit. Death, pain, and suffering will continue so long as we continue to accept the idea that other people are not part of us (divide and conquer), that some people are less worthy to live or that it is okay to sacrifice a few for the many.
And then I am encouraged that “one” man could ignite thousands of people to fight for a common cause. In the Disney cartoon story of Mulan, they had the saying something to the effect that “one man could change the tide or course of history.” Gandhi was one such man. Because of his courage and persistence, thousands of men and women endured physical brutality in order to stand up to injustice. Through him thousands gained hope. How did one man give those thousands of men courage? But here I wonder what else went on behind the scenes. Gandhi appeared to have financial backing from wealthy people. There was even a comment from him that his friends told him it was costing them a lot of money to keep him poor. . . I would be interested to learn more about that. I have a feeling there is more to the truth than what we have been shown. There’s likely another story in that itself. But regardless, I believe there is something within the human spirit which will endure tremendous injustices and suffering to protect itself if only the proper drive is aroused. Gandhi obviously moved the masses. He touched the drive. But then again, Hitler also moved the masses. Perhaps it’s our herd mentality that is easily whipped up into a frenzy. But again there was one central figure, Hitler. Maybe it’s our tendency to follow one figure. And now I can see how important that we make sure that one figure we choose is good and just.
In the movie, Gandhi had said, “Good always prevails in the end, and evil will always fall in the end. That truth never fails.” As a Christian, I do believe that. Just as all the injustice inflicted upon Jesus has shown us, He ultimately surfaced as the victor. And as Revelation tells us, we will eventually overcome evil. My personal feeling is that a helper holds back total chaos and evil in our world because when Jesus ascended to heaven, He told us that he would leave a helper here for us. But in Revelation, I think there will come a time when that helper will leave us for a short time. At that time all hell is probably going to break loose. I hope if my family and I have to live through it, we will have the courage to stand up for what is right. I hope I never come to the point were I allow another person to die in exchange for a piece of bread. I see other people in history were able to remain fast to what was good, so I am encouraged that we may also. I pray that good will prevail in my family and me if ever we are challenged.
Thanks again, Andrea, for recommending the movie. Certainly food for thought.
Marlakins
Andrea said,
September 16, 2007 at 6:04 pm
And thank you, Marla, for your interesting and insightful comments.
In the same vein, I have been fascinated by the work of Martin luther King, who based his nonviolent approach to racism on Gandhi’s work. “Eyes on the Prize” was a TV documentary series that told the story. It was interesting and touching to me to see how hard king had to work to try to keep black people on a nonviolent approach. In that struggle, too, there were tragic deaths.
And then, of course, there is your concern with “the whole story.” King was chronically and continuously unfaithful to his wife. Did that sin poison his whole ministry? i think it must have. Does it reflect on nonviolence as a strategy? I don’t think so. But it doesn’t make adultery right.
Finally, there is that celibacy piece. That is a mystery to me. My cousin claims that the abuses of Catholic priests, recently uncovered, are a direct result of the church’s requirement that they be celibate, which she feels is “unnatural and impossible.” (BTW, she is also an atheist and in general highly critical of organized religion. i was glad you introduced me to the work of Dawkins, marla, as I was able to discuss him more intelligently with her than I could have otherwise.) Is there, can there be, a good reason for mindful celibacy? i don’t know.
I, too, wonder how I would react in dire circumstances. i hope i would do the right thing, remain fast to what is good, understand that my bodily life is nothing compared to the incomparable worth of my soul, not sell my soul for a piece of bread by sacrificing another’s life. I try to think every day about how much more important my soul is than my body. it is hard to remember.
Well, good night!!
Andrea
Administrator said,
September 18, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Hi Andrea:
Oh, yeah Martin Luther King, Jr. is another interesting example! And he is another one of who I don’t know much detail, just the usual bits and pieces. . .
You might be interested in this YouTube video that I just watched on Gandhi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_hnwjK_dg It helps to give more insight to Gandhi, including the celibacy thing. Not that I agree with it, but at least I think I can understand now how it plays a part. Apparently, Gandhi felt that he needed to control his personal desires if he were going to put others first. Something like that. Aside from that, I think his personal experience also influenced his choice to go that. I think you’ll see what I mean if you watch the documentary. I’m with you that I really don’t think it’s an easy task for guys to remain celibate. At least not for most of them. I guess there may be a few out there, but for the most part, I think as you mentioned the Catholic priest problems are a perfect example. And it’s not Biblical. It does say that if you have the gift to be single, then that’s okay, but to force it upon yourself as a form of discipline isn’t something encouraged in the Bible. There’ll probably be just too many frustrated guys out there, ha ha ha!
Another thing that bothered me was apparently he alienated his kids because of his dedication to fight for the people. He was away from his kids a lot (including all the times he spent in jail. I think one time he spent 6 years in jail), so his kids resented him. I find that problematic. There must be a better way! Ha!
I just received a book from another AAer parent about another AAer child. The book is called, Danielle’s Story, so at the moment, I’m gonna take a detour with my current reading list.
I’m glad that you got the heads up with Dawkins. It sure helps, doesn’t it, when some of these topics comes up and you have a clue, ha!
Take care!
Marla
Administrator said,
September 18, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that after India got their independence, the Muslim and Hindu continued to fight, and an estimated million died, yikes! And I know that even today there is still violence against Christians from Muslims and Hindus. Apparently, old habits/beliefs die hard, and many people are not like Gandhi. I think it is true that goodness has to be in the heart. You can’t force it through laws. I think Martin Luther King, Jr. also had that problem of violent uprisings while he tried to preach non-violence. I think it’s in the heart.
Marla
Andrea said,
September 21, 2007 at 7:59 am
Hi Marla–Thanks for the youtube video, it was very interesting, and it does help understand the roots of Gandhi’s celibacy. Kind of interesting that Gandhi chose celibacy, probably somewhat out of guilt at not being present at his father’s death, and Dr. King was guilty of sexual misconduct.
Changing hearts of course brings us back to Jesus, that great Changer of Hearts. Perhaps just by changing our own hearts we can do more good than by any other way . . . .
Have a good day! Andrea
Administrator said,
September 25, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Hi Andrea!
I was just looking at another website that had some more stuff on Gandhi–”the other side of him, ack!” I don’t know how much of it is true or not, but this is the kind of stuff I wonder about, that is, what was the man really like? Brian had mentioned to me about it being known that Gandhi slept with young naked gals to try to strenghten his vow of chastity, hmmm. And also this web link mentions how the “movie” was funded by the Indian government and also overseen by it. So there were things that were not shown that would shed much negative light on India. One example was that the “caste” system wasn’t ever mentioned in the movie. I think that’s true, although they did briefly mention the “untouchables.” But anyway, there’s a lot more if you’re interested in reading some of it. http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
This also reminds me that I found another blog with a post on non-violence which used Gandhi, King, and Mandela as examples. Actually, I was a bit surprised to see “Mandela” there as a non-violent example since I recall reading about their “necklaces and matchsticks” to control informants. If those were true, that’s definitely NOT non-violent! Yikes! Those “necklaces” were supposedly tires filled with kerosene and hung over the person’s neck then set on fire. I saw a few pictures of a person being burned to death like that once. It was horrible! The picture was being shown as what Mandela’s necklaces were. I thought that was common knowledge about those necklaces. Maybe I was wrong?
That book you suggested a while back isn’t available at my library, yet. Hopefully they’ll eventually pick it up, so that I can get a hold of it. For now I’m reading another book called When Smoke Ran Like Water about environment pollution issues. So many things I didn’t know!
Okay! Take care!
Marla
Anand said,
March 6, 2008 at 10:21 am
This is my website on learning Indian culture and music. i was born here in Queens New York and am 30 years old. I am just mystified at how ignorant some people. My father, Ashwin Vyas Ph.D. in Sociology and Dean of his Department did his thesis on Gandhi and the social stratification system (caste as it is sometime referred to in lay terms) in India and his findings and conclusions are widely accepted amongst academics. that social stratification exists EVERYWHERE even here. Waiters are further down the totem pole than lets say your priest or Doctor – it exists everywhere. Your stereo-types of Indians and your ideas that Gandhi slept with young girls is absolutely horrible and flat wrong. He was married when he was only 13 (that type of ceremony – child brides – is very predominant in Wales in todays world, not so much India anymore, but Wales yes) and was very faithful to his wife – although there are accounts that he was not “there” for his family, but he was busy helping a nation find its self.. Also the men who approached Gandhi in the Movie were HINUDUS and so was the man who killed him; tell you about religion. Gandhi was saying this, Lets say we have a fabric. You call it cotton and I, in Hindi I call it “Khadhi” (that is the real word for cotton) – does our word change the fabric? No. Neither does what we call god or where we CHOOSE to pray or not pray. God is in our hearts.. The object is not be LIKE Christ, but to be the Christ for yourselves.
Administrator said,
March 6, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Thank you, Anand, for stopping by and leaving your comments. First off, I checked out your site, and I enjoyed your music. Very nice! Thanks for sharing that.
Regarding the social stratification system or caste system in India, you make a good point that it is true that there is discrimination “everywhere.” But my feeling is just because it is everywhere, that doesn’t make it right. Poor people should not be abused just because they are poor or born to poor families no matter what nationality they are be it American, African, Asian, Indian, etc. I think to accept a social stratification system just because it’s everywhere is wrong no matter what country or peoples practices it, including India. By social stratification I mean being “abused” because of one’s social status like being beating for plucking flowers. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html This is not the same difference between being a doctor and a waiter. Sure the is a perceived hierarchy, and some people may look down on waiters, but in this country, poor people can become doctors and not be forever relegated to waiter status because of his family lineage. And just because a waiter is a waiter, we realize we have no right to beat the waiter. From the movie, Gandhi, it appears that Gandhi would agree that the caste system/social stratification system is wrong. The movie portrays him trying to break that system exemplified by parts in the movie like where he tells his wife that she should clean the latrine. At first she objected because it was the work of untouchables.
As far as Gandhi and what he was like in real life, I can only go with what I’ve read or heard. I didn’t know the man or his family. From my point of view, as an “outsider,” how would I know who to believe, you or someone else? You may marvel at our ignorance, but we only know what we are fed or exposed to.
Regarding the words which describe the same thing, I agree with your example of cotton. However with God, I don’t think it follows the same logic. I think it’s actually opposite. For instance, if one person believes that God is a person, and another person believes that we are all God, that is not describing the same thing, yet using the same “word” to describe two different things. There can be two separate girls, both sharing the same name, Susan. You call them by the same name, but they are not the same girls. This is the opposite of your description of using different words to describe the same thing.
Take care,
Marla
Andrea said,
March 7, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Hi friends,
Wow, Marla, when I read about something called “Mandela’s necklaces”, I had to look into that! Here’s the Wikipedia link I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing
It states that this horrible, violent practice was
“carried out in the name of the ANC” but also officially condemned by it. I read that as though I were to torture somebody and say I was doing it in the name of Christ. Christ, of course, is not to blame for this–I am misrepresenting him. Neither do I think we can hold the African National Congress responsible for something they condemn.
Where the connection to Mandela seems to be is that his ex-wife endorsed it. Reprehensible on her part, but no indication that Mandela himself did.
Also in this article is an inspiring story about Bishop Desmond Tutu, also a proponent of nonviolence I believe. In the book “God’s Politics” there is another inspiring story about him, I will try to find it.
OK, I’d better go to bed! Andrea
Administrator said,
March 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Hi Andrea!
Funny to see this old thread come back up. I read the Wiki link you posted regarding the necklacing. Thanks for posting it. While I can see your point that it was primarily Winnie who endorsed the necklacing, I tend to feel that Nelson did “not” disapprove of it. Naturally I haven’t read everything on the subject, but did Nelson Mandela ever denounce what Winnie was doing? She was known for saying something like, “With our matches and necklaces we shall liberate you.” And take a look at this link http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/enemy.html Here’s a quote of part of that link regarding Mandela’s actions and the Church Street bombings:
“President P.W. Botha told Mandela way back in 1985, that he could be a free man as long as he did one thing: Publicly renounce violence. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser F.W. de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line is that Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced violence – and we should never forget that.”
That’s very different from how Gandhi and King protested, as far as I see. Gandhi went on hunger fasts when he learned of all the violence that broke out. And I don’t think you read that Gandhi approved of any violence, but disobedience, yes. He appeared to be quick to denounce violence. The civil disobedience Gandhi practiced appeared much different from Mandela’s. Sure many people died during and after India’s liberation, but I think the reasons were not because Gandhi was endorsing it, but rather it came from the religious discord amongst the people themselves. Course, there’s a lot I’m sure I haven’t read, so perhaps I should take the time to read more for better understanding of it. But I have been under the impression that Mandela was not non-violent.
I’ll try to find that book “God’s Politics.” So much to read! I don’t know when I’ll get to it, but I’ll put it on my list! Ha!
Take care,
Marla
Andrea said,
March 9, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Well, you’ve opened my eyes on that one. I always thought Mandela was a proponent of nonviolence, but really that was just an assumption I made. It’s good to know the truth.
Some people in our church read God’s Politics together. (We were going to read books together, but we decided just to focus on the Bible.) Most people really liked it and agreed with the author on most things–a few felt like he was just stating the obvious. He is a minister, and very repetitive, as most ministers, I have noticed, tend to be. I loved the Tutu story, though I can’t remember it now–something about dancing, I believe??
OK, gotta go, Andrea