Mahatma Gandhi Reportedly Depicted As Bisexual, Racist In New Biography

He is known as a kindly father figure in India, but Mahatma Gandhi was also a racist bisexual who left his wife for a male Jewish bodybuilder, according to reports of a controversial new biography.

In Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India, former New York Times executive editor Joseph Lelyveld paints a different picture of the Indian independence leader and activist. As the Wall Street Journal is reporting, the book "obligingly gives readers more than enough information to discern that [Gandhi] was a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist -- one who was often downright cruel to those around him."

Among the various charges disclosed in the book: Gandhi not only slept in beds with young women under the age of 18, but also engaged in a long-term, gay affair with German-Jewish architect and bodybuilder Hermann Kallenbach, for whom India's peace icon at one point left his wife in 1908. As the Wall Street Journal reports:

"Your portrait (the only one) stands on my mantelpiece in my bedroom," he wrote to Kallenbach. "The mantelpiece is opposite to the bed." For some ­reason, cotton wool and Vaseline were "a constant reminder" of Kallenbach, which Mr. Lelyveld believes might ­relate to the enemas Gandhi gave ­himself, although there could be other, less generous, explanations.

Gandhi wrote to Kallenbach about "how completely you have taken ­possession of my body. This is slavery with a vengeance." Gandhi nicknamed himself "Upper House" and Kallenbach "Lower House," and he made Lower House promise not to "look lustfully upon any woman." The two then pledged "more love, and yet more love . . . such love as they hope the world has not yet seen."

Later, Gandhi is also said to have encouraged his ­17-year-old great-niece, Manu, to be naked during her "nightly cuddles" with him, and began sleeping with her and other young women. He reportedly told a woman on one occasion: "Despite my best efforts, the organ remained aroused. It was an altogether strange and shameful experience."

As the Telegraph reports, the book also tackles both Gandhi's vanity and racist attitude, particularly toward South Africans. When he was arrested in South Africa, he is quoted as saying, "We were marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs... We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized."

Comments

[HS Vachoa]

11:29 PM on 04/19/2011

This book really evidences that Gandhi, an upper-caste Hindu practiced molestation of women by treating them as objects of sexual experimentation, considered Blacks as animals and advocated subjugation and Apartheid against Blacks in South Africa whilst concealing these practices under the garb of his Hindu Sainthood.

More on Gandhi's love for the Blacks
www.gandhism.net

[kamachanda]

08:42 AM on 04/05/2011

One of the first lines of a right wing attack, claim the target was homosexual and/or sexually deviant. A few years ago they were painting Abraham Lincoln as a feminine homosexual who fixated on Negros. The word will slowly work its way to Texas, where the committee to rewrite the history books will slip it into the curriculum for seven year olds.

[drularter]

07:10 AM on 04/05/2011

Who cares what he did with his personal life?! That was his personal life. Not a person on Earth can tell me that they don't have something that they would rather the world not know.

[HS Vachoa]

11:31 PM on 04/19/2011

How is advocating racism against the Blacks a personal issue?

[Steamboater]

05:32 AM on 04/05/2011

From the NYTimes sujnday book review this past weekend:
 
 
"On the first point India is quite conservative ... In 2009 the Delhi High Court struck down a British-era law against sodomy, a ruling seen as a watershed for gay rights. Nevertheless most gay Indians would not feel comfortable coming out.On the second, Gandhi is revered even by the young, but there is little significant understanding of the nuances of his philosophy and life. He has been mostly reduced to an idol.
　
The controversy also highlights India’’s highly circumscribed right to free speech. Indian officials frequently ban and censor books, movies, art and other works. Under Indian law any citizen can petition to have a work banned, and activists and political leaders frequently exercise that right. But it is uncommon for even a book a year to be banned nationally.
　
The controversy appears to have started because of reviews in publications in the United States and Britain ... The Wall Street Journal, asserting that the book provides evidence that Gandhi was "a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist." That review ... argued that Gandhi was in love with Hermann Kallenbach, the German-Jewish architect with whom Gandhi lived in Johannesburg, and it cited letters from Gandhi to Mr. Kallenbach, which are quoted in "Great Soul."
 
 
 ... Mr. Lelyveld writes, "One respected Gandhi scholar characterized the relationship as ‘‘clearly homoerotic’’ rather than homosexual, intending through that choice of words to describe a strong mutual attraction, nothing more." But Mr. Lelyveld then acknowledges: "The conclusions passed on by word of mouth in South Africa’’s small Indian community were sometimes less nuanced. It was no secret then, or later, that Gandhi, leaving his wife behind, had gone to live with a man."
 
 
 
Although Mr. Lelyveld does not draw a conclusion about the relationship in the book, he writes, "In an age when the concept of Platonic love gains little credence, selectively chosen details of the relationship and quotations from letters can easily be arranged to suggest a conclusion."
　
 
 ... Mr. Lelyveld said the information about Gandhi’’s relationship with Mr. Kallenbach was not his own discovery and was never intended to be the main focus of his book.
"All I can claim is that I dealt with that material more extensively with an eye to the general public than anyone previously," Mr. Lelyveld said. "But it ’s not a central preoccupation. My book is about Gandhi’s struggle for social justice, not his intimate relationships. But he was a complicated man, and the two are linked. "
 
 
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/books/gandhi-biography-by-joseph-lelyveld-roils-india.html?pagewanted=2&ref=books
 
 
 

[Steamboater]

05:48 AM on 04/05/2011

In regard to the above post, times were different then and homoeroticism didn't neceassirly lead to a physical relaitionship however leaving your wife and moving in with another man etc may have very well had somehting physical to do with it. Anyone who has read Hemingway's, "The Sun Also Rises" gets to the chapter where the two men are laying together by a stream and the scene can be interpreted as one of the greatest love scenes in literaure., however that was homoerotic and there was no physical relationship between the two of them, at least that's what so many Hemingway affecionados say.
 
 
 
Gandhi as "upper house" and Kallenbach as "lower house" though. A euphemism for a top and bottom, a master/slave or Gandhi putting himself in a higher class than Kallenbach, which would be pretty interesting considering Gandhi's desire to destroy class barriers.

[Jim Shaffer]

05:14 AM on 04/05/2011

Put a big enough magnifying glass to anybody's life, and you're going to find something that someone can interpret as immoral, so what? This is an intentional attempt at villifying a great man. He had the method for peaceful revollution, it's called civil disobedience, and it's just what America needs to take it's country back. The rich and powerful need to know that they are rich and powerful because we the people support it and allow it. If we were to all or mostly decide to not go to work, not buy things we don't need, not drive our vehicles, not .... you get the idea, the country could be brought to it's knees in days. The USA needs a Ghandi!

[AnnShahan2]

12:34 AM on 04/05/2011

Gandhi is remembered for his non-violent approach to political issues. What he did other than that is his own business. Let him rest in peace.

[HS Vachoa]

11:36 PM on 04/19/2011

How is it non-violent to spew violent racial virulation against Blacks and Untouchables?

And, how is it non-violence when his tactics resulted in one of the biggest bloodbaths in history?


Gandhi's tactic seem to use passive violence of racism that inevitably resulted in violence and bloodbaths.

[retourner]

02:50 PM on 04/04/2011

this is wonderful.
let it burn.

[karta]

02:07 PM on 04/04/2011

The media is having a field day with peddling this like porn. Shameful and nauseating.

I think that, in the interests of fairness to both Mahatma Gandhi as well as the author Joseph Lelyveld, people should reserve their judgement about either of them, until and unless they have read the book and examined the claims therein critically.

Here is Lelyveld's remarks in self-defense:
My book is based on published material, says Lelyveld
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1597266.ece

and please see Mrinalini Kasturi's comment below
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Mrinalini_Kasturi/mahatma-gandhi-bisexual-_n_841410_83123485.html
for a pro-Gandhi take on this.

Thanks.

[nybirdcalls]

12:52 AM on 04/05/2011

You'd think people would try and understand the issue, get the facts before pelting the stones at whatever is put out there. Oh well, just another day in the sickening world of media, money and instant fame.

[gypsynomad]

07:44 AM on 04/05/2011

You nailed it right there...the world is full of greed, instant money and fame with little knowledge and empty vessels....

[hotsauce]

01:11 PM on 04/04/2011

Gandhi's proclivity for young female companionship is not new. Reporters following him often commented on the unusual sleeping arrangements.

[karta]

01:31 PM on 04/04/2011

There are matters on which Gandhi can be legitimately criticized, but sexual misconduct isn't likely one of them. Gandhi was an avowed practicing "Brahmachari" (one who abstains from sex and other carnal pleasure seeking activities), and the "sleeping arrangemen­ts" you refer to were apparently his method for achieving self control in terms of overcoming sexual urges.

[nikanj]

08:54 PM on 04/05/2011

Well then, he should have had the 'self control' to not
go to bed with 17 year olds in the first place. They were
young women, not some sort of experimental object.

[HS Vachoa]

12:00 AM on 04/20/2011

Well! if Gandhi was practicing some weird Hindu practice of "Brahmachari" that allows him to molest women becasue he can't control his urges then obviously he was a sexual Predator.

[CDL1]

01:00 PM on 04/04/2011

the world would be worse off were it not for Gandhi. regardless of whatever faults he may have had I'm grateful for his contributions to humanity.

[HS Vachoa]

11:41 PM on 04/19/2011

The world has been worse because of his actions that have only resulted in mayhem and bloodbaths for Blacks and Indians.

[Mrinalini Kasturi]

11:32 AM on 04/04/2011

Who is this wierdo Joseph Lelyveld speculating such nonsense about Gandhi?
Obviously he has a dirty mind and views any relationship or friendship with a sexual inuendo.

Gandhi defined an ashram as "group life lived in a religious spirit". The word "religious" was used here in the widest sense. The ashram did not enforce on its inmates any theology or ritual, but only a few simple rules of personal conduct. Some of the vows administered in the ashram, such as those to truth, non-violence and chastity, were of universal application;
From the Gita which he described as his "spiritual dictionary", he had imbibed the ideal of "nonpossession" which set him on the road to voluntary poverty, and of "selfless action " which equipped him with an extraordinary stamina for his public life.
If Gandhi was a racist how could he welcome the lower caste "untouchables" harijans in to his Ashram?
http://www.mkgandhi.org/biography/campaign.htm
Joseph Lelyveld does not know anything about Indian culture or Gandhi and his book should be condemned.

[paganmist]

10:48 AM on 04/04/2011

When I hear about how great men and women in the world were flawed - often in shocking ways - I am not surprised.

Because guess what?  Humans are flawed.  And often, the most charismatic, the most prominent, the most inspired of us are more deeply flawed than most.

No, I am not defending anyone.  No I am not defending racism.  I'm not defending MLK Jr. supposedly beating a woman.  I am NOT defending bad behavior.  So don't even reply with that.

At the same time, us humans have a tendency to idealize "great" men and women who've contributed much to the world.  And then when we discover that they weren't so "great", we either downplay or completely ignore their contributions to the world.

This kind of black and white thinking is at the heart of the divisive politics in the United States.  It's at the heart of any number of personal conflicts.  It's at the heart of many wars, even.

This toxic idea that because someone has done something wrong in one way, they can never do something right.  That no matter how great the contribution to the world, having flaws invalidates all the good a person has ever done.

The simple truth is that no person is all good or all bad.  Each and every one of us has done good in our lives and done bad.  EVERY LAST ONE OF US has done something VERY GOOD in our lives, and something VERY BAD in our lives.  We are imperfect.  We are shaped by external ideas and beliefs.  And we have these complex brains and emotions which are impossible to understand, making choices for us every day... choices which can always have unintended consequences.

The very best we can do as people is to try to give more good to the world than bad.  If I do 1000 bad things in my life, then I hope that before I die, I will have done at least 1000 good things, but hopefully it will be 1001 and more.

By the way - people with the strongest emotions and with the greatest capacity for caring about the world also have the greatest capacity for being flawed emotionally.  It's a two-edged sword.  Those same strong emotions that drive them (well, us - I am an ENFP) to do good with a barely controlled passion also have that same barely controlled passion during bad times, too.

Our "saints" were not perfect.  If you don't expect them to be, you won't be disappointed when you find out they weren't.

[HS Vachoa]

11:44 PM on 04/19/2011

I understand your point but Gandhi was morally flawed and practicing racist who believed in the subjugation of Blacks and Untouchables under the Caste system.

[Yank in France]

10:31 AM on 04/04/2011

America seems to have produced a whole generation of crash-the-gates writers, who opportunistically seek PERSONAL FAME by attacking parts of the past of great leaders. Does anyone remember the guy who wrote extensively trying to prove that Dr Martin Luther King's Ph'd was made from plagiarized text?

Just recently, I came across an article by Wendy Doniger who claims that her studies show that yoga, as it is practiced today, really has more to do with gymnastics exercises imposed on the Indians population by the British via their network of YMCAs!!

Now this book comes out highlighting one part of Mohatma Gandhi's life and depicting him as a racist.

And what the heck, why not? In a country where the propaganda mill makes up history about Israel and the Palestinians, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

What is surprizing is the level of discourse by so many posters here who barely have any idea who Gandhi was. Sorry folks, but this whole thread says more about the superficial nature of American culture today and the utter lack of interest in other cultures by its population.

Pitiful!

[nybirdcalls]

11:56 AM on 04/04/2011

Good post, Yank in France! Especially that bit about "What is surprizing is the level of discourse by so many posters here who barely have any idea who Gandhi was." F & F!

[Yank in France]

12:26 PM on 04/04/2011

Thanks nybirdcalls. Love your moniker and already fanned you. -:)

[gypsynomad]

05:19 PM on 04/04/2011

Actually you did pretty good there, I am impressed. I could not do what you are doing now my friend.

[HS Vachoa]

11:48 PM on 04/19/2011

So, you don't want history to address Gandhi's racism against Blacks or you just think it was just the norm or that Gandhi is too holy to be judged by his racist actions.

[Yank in France]

01:23 AM on 04/20/2011

No, not at all. We all have stains in our past, almost without exception. I do not revere Gandhi so much as the person, because I do NOT believe in gods. He also got it wrong on the British fight to fend off the Nazis and their allies in WWII.

But it is cheap and easy to attack someone for errors committed earlier in his life. The reality here is that the author is attacking Gandhi to increase his own notoriety, not bring clarity to an historic figure.

Certain people make a real business out of this practice. It beats selling jewellery and the cost of inventory couldn't be cheaper!

[relay73]

10:14 AM on 04/04/2011

What amazes me is that the personal letters of these men are exposed and exploited by authors like Lelyveld (who used to work the the NY Times and is probably in desperate need of a paycheck).
Yes we get a a little insight into the personal lives of these men, but if they wanted their personal lives exposed, they would have done so themselves. We have love letters from great men and women throughout history, but ask yourself, if you are writing a love letter, do you have any intention of someone other than your love to read it?
This is a loss of privacy that is considered acceptable because the man was a public figure. But being a public figure does not automatically declare your personal relationships as welcome to interpretation.

[Mandar Powale]

09:13 AM on 04/04/2011

For me 'Depicted' is the operative word here. I need the truth which be set in stone. Not speculation.