01-29-2005, 04:01 AM
Hi Ramana
to elaborate a little further, I read a lot of Hind Swaraj (not all of it) but I can tell you how it was designed.
It was designed in the form of a long Q& A
so basically, Gandhi wanted to present questions that he supposed a reader to have, and he gave his answers.
So you would have
Question: etc etc etc (sometimes there would be a lengthy explanation)
Answer (Gandhi used Editor I think) - which was meant to be Gandhi's opinion on the question at hand.
The thing was, when one reads it, you find yourself agreeing with the views of the Questioner more than Gandhi's "Editor" response! That's part of the reason I stopped reading it after a while. And Naipaul's comment is in regard to Gandhi's "Editor" responses - which did a terrible job at answering the question part. Now let me go and look for Naipaul's comment:
Khalid Hasan
The Friday Times, Lahore, Feb 27 - Mar 4, 2004
here is the part i am referring too -
<b>He called Mahatma Gandhi "uneducated and never a thinker". Gandhi, he
explained, was a historical figure who came at a particular moment and
turned all his drawbacks into religion. He used religion to awaken the
country in a way that none of the educated leaders could have done. "He has
absolutely no message today. People talk too much about Gandhi and study him
too little." He called Gandhi's first book "so nonsensical it would curl the
hair of even the most devoted admirer". He said he knew of no Indians who
actually read Gandhi. "They take from him some vague idea of a great
redeeming holiness and they are free to ignore the practical side - Gandhi
the hater of dirt, the hater of public defecation. That last is still very
much an Indian sport. In fact, the Gandhian idea of piety and a very holy
poverty is used now to excuse the dirt of the cities, the shoddiness of the
architecture. By some inversion, Indians have used the very idea of Gandhi
to turn dirt and backwardness into much-loved deities." That sounds like
Naipaul should sound and has always sounded, his nose up in the air sniffing
the clouds.</b>
that first book was Hind Swaraj
http://www.caribbeanhindu.com/VS_Naipaul.htm
"There's an extraordinary work by the young Gandhi-his 1909 book, Hind Swaraj, about the need for Indian independence-where he says that what is really wrong with India is modern civilization: doctors, lawyers, railways (spreading famine and vice). His arguments are quite absurd."
- the arguments of the Questioner make sense, the arguments of the editor(gandhi) are poor
to elaborate a little further, I read a lot of Hind Swaraj (not all of it) but I can tell you how it was designed.
It was designed in the form of a long Q& A
so basically, Gandhi wanted to present questions that he supposed a reader to have, and he gave his answers.
So you would have
Question: etc etc etc (sometimes there would be a lengthy explanation)
Answer (Gandhi used Editor I think) - which was meant to be Gandhi's opinion on the question at hand.
The thing was, when one reads it, you find yourself agreeing with the views of the Questioner more than Gandhi's "Editor" response! That's part of the reason I stopped reading it after a while. And Naipaul's comment is in regard to Gandhi's "Editor" responses - which did a terrible job at answering the question part. Now let me go and look for Naipaul's comment:
Khalid Hasan
The Friday Times, Lahore, Feb 27 - Mar 4, 2004
here is the part i am referring too -
<b>He called Mahatma Gandhi "uneducated and never a thinker". Gandhi, he
explained, was a historical figure who came at a particular moment and
turned all his drawbacks into religion. He used religion to awaken the
country in a way that none of the educated leaders could have done. "He has
absolutely no message today. People talk too much about Gandhi and study him
too little." He called Gandhi's first book "so nonsensical it would curl the
hair of even the most devoted admirer". He said he knew of no Indians who
actually read Gandhi. "They take from him some vague idea of a great
redeeming holiness and they are free to ignore the practical side - Gandhi
the hater of dirt, the hater of public defecation. That last is still very
much an Indian sport. In fact, the Gandhian idea of piety and a very holy
poverty is used now to excuse the dirt of the cities, the shoddiness of the
architecture. By some inversion, Indians have used the very idea of Gandhi
to turn dirt and backwardness into much-loved deities." That sounds like
Naipaul should sound and has always sounded, his nose up in the air sniffing
the clouds.</b>
that first book was Hind Swaraj
http://www.caribbeanhindu.com/VS_Naipaul.htm
"There's an extraordinary work by the young Gandhi-his 1909 book, Hind Swaraj, about the need for Indian independence-where he says that what is really wrong with India is modern civilization: doctors, lawyers, railways (spreading famine and vice). His arguments are quite absurd."
- the arguments of the Questioner make sense, the arguments of the editor(gandhi) are poor