BARKING, ANGLETERRE - 17 NOVEMBRE : Des élèves et des parents manifestent contre le bombardement de la Palestine et le bilan de vote de la députée locale Margaret Hodge à la mairie de Barking le 17 novembre 2023 à Barking, en Angleterre. Des écoliers et des enseignants participent à une grève nationale pour appeler à un cessez-le-feu dans la guerre Israël/Palestine à Gaza. (Photo par Guy Smallman/Getty Images)
Peut-être que les indices étaient toujours là. Lorsque le « syndicat national de l’éducation » a été formé en 2017, il a abandonné les règles de grammaire pour son nouveau logo. Les majuscules, généralement utilisées pour les noms propres, ont été omises dans son logo. Ce nouveau syndicat a déclaré qu’il prévoyait de « façonner l’avenir de l’éducation ».
Aujourd’hui, avec près d’un demi-million de membres, le NEU (National Education Union) est le plus grand syndicat d’enseignants en Europe, et sans doute le plus puissant. Pendant la pandémie, il a exercé une influence suffisante pour contraindre la fermeture des écoles britanniques. Pour ses services rendus, Mary Bousted, alors leader du syndicat, a été faite Dame lors des honneurs du Nouvel An de cette année.
Sous la direction de son successeur en tant que secrétaire général, Daniel Kebede, le NEU est resté un syndicat engagé dans la défense des causes sociales, plaidant pour l’égalité des sexes, la lutte contre le racisme et pour les droits des LGBT+. Cependant, ces dernières années, le syndicat a focalisé une part croissante de son attention sur une cause en particulier : la Palestine.
On pourrait s’interroger sur le lien entre un syndicat d’enseignants britannique et un conflit géopolitique situé à 3 000 kilomètres de là, mais cette question serait vaine. Chaque année — sauf en période de guerre ou de pandémie — le NEU finance deux voyages de propagande vers les territoires palestiniens, tandis que son magazine Educate publie fréquemment des articles critiques à l’égard d’Israël. Dans un éditorial récent, Kebede a écrit : « En tant qu’éducateurs, dont les instincts sont humanitaires, nos membres sont consternés par la volonté des dirigeants politiques de laisser cette situation perdurer. Pourquoi les ventes d’armes continuent-elles ? Pourquoi le verdict de la Cour internationale de justice n’a-t-il pas limité leur comportement ? »
Pour comprendre cette obsession, il suffit d’assister à la conférence annuelle du NEU. Avant même l’ouverture de l’événement, diverses branches réfléchissaient à des moyens novateurs d’attaquer Israël. Natasha Brandon, une enseignante juive de lycée basée dans le nord de Londres, a été surprise de découvrir que la question de la Palestine figurait en tête de l’ordre du jour pour la division LGBT+ lors de leurs réunions pré-conférence.
« Une motion a attaqué Israël pour ses politiques envers les LGBT+, les qualifiant de ‘pinkwashing’ », raconte-t-elle. La motion affirmait : « Le pinkwashing est une stratégie utilisée par plusieurs pays, y compris Israël, pour détourner l’attention de leurs violations des droits humains en focalisant sur des actions positives envers les LGBT+. » Elle ajoutait que la conférence devait « ordonner aux exécutifs de publier une déclaration condamnant les pays qui utilisent le pinkwashing pour masquer leurs abus envers d’autres groupes opprimés ».
Natasha, choquée par cette motion, a écrit aux organisateurs pour exprimer son malaise : « L’idée que les politiques LGBT+ d’Israël soient un simple stratagème pour détourner l’attention d’autres injustices est à la fois antisémite et homophobe », a-t-elle souligné dans sa lettre. Ses préoccupations ont été ignorées.
Lors de la conférence elle-même, qui s’est tenue avant Pâques à Bournemouth, il n’y avait pas seulement une session consacrée à la Palestine — comme chaque année — mais également une standing ovation pour l’invité d’honneur : l’« ambassadeur » palestinien Husam Zomlot. Ce dernier a déclaré que sa présence représentait « une déclaration de soutien et de solidarité », soulignant que « vous avez été historiquement les plus grands soutiens de la Palestine ». Il a particulièrement remercié Louise Regan, présidente du Comité de solidarité avec la Palestine (PSC), membre exécutif du NEU et présidente des affaires internationales.
Il est frappant de noter que Louise Regan fait partie des quatre directeurs du PSC qui occupent également des postes au sein du NEU. Les autres sont Bernard Regan, fiduciaire du NEU, Julia Simpkins, agente de solidarité internationale du NEU à Bolton, et Alex Snowdon, secrétaire de district du NEU à Northumberland.
Après cet accueil chaleureux, les motions relatives à la Palestine ont défilé. L’une d’elles stipulait que « le gouvernement raciste et d’extrême droite d’Israël est le principal moteur du conflit, de la violence et de la guerre en Palestine et en Israël ». En réaffirmant son soutien au PSC, cette motion insistait aussi pour diffuser des ressources éducatives afin « d’accroître la compréhension » des événements en Palestine et Israël.
Tout cela a été présenté avec une confiance digne de la politique des syndicats étudiants. Lors d’un débat sur un amendement visant à engager le NEU contre le programme gouvernemental de prévention de l’extrémisme, un délégué, Mat Milovanovic, a déclaré fièrement : « N’avons-nous pas le droit de montrer à nos étudiants ce qui est juste et équitable ? » Il a précisé que, lui et ses collègues à Ealing, avaient montré leur solidarité avec la Palestine en « portant des cordons, des badges et en prenant des photos de groupe appelant à un cessez-le-feu immédiat », bien qu’ils savaient que l’école pourrait faire l’objet d’une enquête « pour non-respect de l’obligation d’impartialité politique ».
Lors d’un autre débat critiquant le Royaume-Uni et d’autres pays pour avoir retiré leur financement de l’UNRWA après qu’il ait été découvert que certains de leurs travailleurs avaient participé aux événements du 7 octobre, Peter Block, un enseignant juif à la retraite de 75 ans, originaire de Londres, a demandé à prendre la parole. Il avait déjà appris qu’un jeune enseignant juif, qui devait débattre d’une des motions, s’était désisté. « Il était tellement intimidé qu’il avait peur pour sa propre sécurité », se souvient Peter. « L’ensemble du groupe exécutif portait des keffiehs palestiniens, et c’était intimidant. Mais je sentais que je n’avais d’autre choix que de parler à cause de toutes les demi-vérités et des mensonges éhontés qui étaient proférés. »
Peter a commencé son discours par un message de paix — « Shalom » — mais l’ambiance s’est rapidement détériorée. « C’était une atmosphère fébrile et le bruit et les cris ont commencé presque immédiatement. Je n’ai même pas pu finir mon discours. »
Le NEU m’a dit qu’il avait « condamné sans équivoque les actions du Hamas le 7 octobre », ajoutant : « L’appel à un cessez-le-feu est désormais impératif face à la destruction et à la perte de vies à Gaza », et insistant : « Il est légitime pour le NEU de s’exprimer, aux côtés d’organismes tels que le TUC et l’ONU, pour défendre la protection urgente des enfants et des enseignants en Palestine. » Mais y a-t-il quelque chose de plus sombre en jeu ?
En juillet dernier, le NEU a organisé un événement à Londres intitulé « Comment parler de la Palestine dans nos écoles ». « Il y avait toute une librairie de littérature pro-palestinienne », dit Peter, qui y a assisté. « La conférence avait intervenant après intervenant parlant du mal d’Israël. Après le déjeuner, ils se sont répartis en groupes, et je suis allé dans une salle plus petite où ils étaient censés discuter de l’antisémitisme. Sauf qu’ils ne le faisaient pas. C’était uniquement sur Israël. Alors je me suis levé et j’ai fait remarquer que nous étions censés discuter de l’antisémitisme. Mais on m’a dit que je devais m’asseoir — car les autres personnes étaient ‘menacées’ par ma présence. »
Kate (ce n’est pas son vrai nom), une autre enseignante juive de Londres, a assisté au même événement, seulement pour découvrir qu’un de ses collègues de l’école expliquait comment il utilisait « chaque occasion » pour partager ses opinions sur la Palestine, y compris en abordant le sujet lors de l’étude de la poésie de guerre. Il a également vanté le fait qu’il avait créé un « groupe de droits de l’homme » après l’école, qu’il utilisait pour dire aux enfants à quel point Israël était maléfique. Bien qu’elle ait écrit à son directeur pour se plaindre, rien n’a été fait. Il dirige toujours son club après l’école.
Le syndicat est également un pilier des manifestations anti-Israël qui se déroulent dans nos villes. Des données provenant de 41 grandes manifestations du PSC, entre octobre 2023 et la fin novembre de l’année dernière, montrent que le NEU avait 23 intervenants officiels — presque deux fois plus que le syndicat suivant, le RMT. À d’autres occasions, ils sponsorisent les manifestations ; pour une manifestation de février à Leicester, le symbole du NEU apparaissait aux côtés des groupes islamistes extrémistes 5 Pillars et CAGE International.
Suite à la motion visant à diffuser des « matériels éducatifs » sur le conflit, Natasha indique qu’elle est consciente qu’une proposition consiste à « présenter Israël comme une entreprise colonialiste », tandis que Peter a été montré des discussions sur un matériel qui « cherche à affirmer que les Juifs n’ont pas d’histoire dans la région ».
Le mois dernier, le NEU a rejoint l’appel pour la Journée d’Action pour la Palestine. En novembre 2023, cela a conduit à une série de sorties scolaires avec des enfants chantant des chansons pro-palestiniennes. Cette année, le NEU a dit aux enseignants de sa branche du nord de Londres : « Notre plan est de porter du rouge et du vert ou des keffiehs, de réaliser une collecte de fonds pour l’Aide Médicale pour la Palestine et d’organiser une veillée dans le parc avec des lanternes flottantes. » Seule une intervention gouvernementale de dernière minute — rappelant aux enseignants la politique de neutralité — a fait échouer certains de ces plans. Seuls quelques enseignants ont ouvertement enfreint les règles. Quoi qu’il en soit, le NEU est susceptible de figurer au cœur de la prochaine manifestation pour la Palestine, plus tard ce mois-ci.
Face à ce type de comportement, un groupe d’enseignants juifs a rencontré Kebede l’année dernière pour demander une approche plus équilibrée du conflit. Ils n’ont pas beaucoup d’espoir ; Kebede est un admirateur de longue date de Jeremy Corbyn, qui a un jour affirmé que les critiques de l’ancien leader travailliste recevaient « 30 pièces d’argent » — un ancien trope antisémite. Bien qu’il se soit ensuite excusé, l’année suivante, lors d’un rassemblement anti-Israël, il a lancé un appel à « globaliser l’intifada ». Un porte-parole du NEU a alors affirmé qu’il s’agissait simplement « d’une expression de solidarité et de soutien aux manifestations civiques ».
Comment une telle « solidarité » se manifeste dans la salle de classe est souvent anecdotique, mais cela ne rend certainement pas les écoles plus sûres. Une mère d’élève de l’école Norwood, dans le sud de Londres, m’a parlé de deux incidents où elle a eu l’impression que les enfants de l’école étaient subtilement éduqués contre Israël. Son fils de 14 ans a ramené à la maison un matériel pédagogique qui avait été distribué dans un « cours de citoyenneté » sur les réfugiés. Ce matériel contenait une carte incorrecte d’Israël et affirmait à tort que « depuis 1948, plus de cinq millions de Palestiniens ont été déplacés » — alors que la guerre de 1948 a déplacé 700 000 Palestiniens (le chiffre de cinq millions provient du nombre de leurs descendants). Dans une autre école, à l’ouest de Londres, une enseignante remplaçante a demandé à ses élèves de primaire, âgés de huit ans, de lever la main s’ils étaient juifs. Lorsque quelques-uns ont levé la main, l’enseignante leur a dit : « Je suis Free Palestine. »
Pour les parents juifs, c’est une période difficile. Selon le CST, qui surveille les crimes de haine anti-juifs, les cas d’antisémitisme dans les écoles continuent d’augmenter, avec 162 incidents rien que dans la première moitié de l’année dernière. Parfois, le harcèlement anti-juif a été si grave dans les écoles que les parents se sont sentis contraints de retirer leurs enfants.
Pendant ce temps, alors que le NEU continue de se concentrer sur une guerre de l’autre côté du monde, les problèmes que le syndicat devrait examiner sont à peine pris en compte. « Je sais que je ne suis pas le seul à me demander ce que toute cette obsession pour Israël a à voir avec un syndicat enseignant alors que nous avons plein de problèmes chez nous », déclare Peter. « Nous avons un énorme problème de rétention des enseignants, avec la violence dans les écoles contre les enseignants, avec des écoles en ruine — mais tout ce qu’ils veulent discuter, c’est de la Palestine. »
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeInteresting that Mr Anil namechecks the National Theatre production last year. I actually played Gandhi in that production and i wonder if Mr Anil actually saw it or just read the blurb? Far from defending Gandhi’s assassin it tried to look at both sides of the modern nationalist argument through the historical lens of Godse and Gandhi. One of its main themes was how polarisation is a modern malaise that makes rational discussion impossible. This article strikes me as a particularly lazy and thoughtless example of just the problem we are facing. Of course Gandhi was human and displayed traits that are troubling to the modern, liberal mindset. He was also a political genius and, particularly a genius in the study and application of nonviolence which had massive ramifications in 20th Century politics from Martin Luther King to the nonviolent revolutions in Eastern Europe. I invite readers to check back at how much judgemental language Mr Anil uses: “smug”, “bizarre”, “shallow” etc. The classic signs of a politically motivated hatchet job. Rather than presenting facts and letting the readers decide, (which you might expect from someone who teaches at Oxford) he employs the age old techniques of the tabloid. I enjoy Unherd because it offers me thoughtful articles from people I often disagree with. “Thoughtful” is the key word here. I’m afraid this article doesn’t live up to that standard. Audiences seemed to enjoy the measured approach of Anupama Chandrasekhar, who wrote The Father and the Assassin. So much so that the play is being shown again in the autumn. I invite Mr Anil to come and see it this time, so that we can have a chat about it afterwards. Come along and make up your own minds.
Well said, Mr. Bazely!
It reminds me of a comment made to me by a scriptwriter of one of the James Bond films, to the effect that academics are strangely reluctant to ask the artists who are responsible for a cultural artefact, for the thinking that shaped the artefact. The academics prefer to make their own assumptions.
The end result is much unintentional humour, especially when the academics are discussing comedy.
And thank you for the plug at the end of your piece. I will book my ticket!
I met many people with wildly differing views at Stage door after the show and always managed to have lively but polite discussions about the issues in the show. Respect for different views and the humanity of those we disagree with. Classic Gandhian values – which is I think part of the reason his detractors are so desperate to eradicate his legacy.
I met many people with wildly differing views at Stage door after the show and always managed to have lively but polite discussions about the issues in the show. Respect for different views and the humanity of those we disagree with. Classic Gandhian values – which is I think part of the reason his detractors are so desperate to eradicate his legacy.
A hatchet job indeed. Anil couldn’t seem to locate any mid-point between deification and character assassination.
Thats a great response Paul to this hatchet job on Ghandi, of whom I’m no loving fan, but I at least recognise he had skills and charisma. Like you I think this shallow character assassination based on modern standards is unworthy of Unherd. Combined with the series of Brexit failure articles, also lacking balance or a countering view, my Unherd subscription is teetering towards cancellation. This article is just sensationalist trash.
Just one example –
“Mass democracy was unwholesome, he felt — even imperialism infinitely preferable to the tyranny of the majority. The correct way of organising society was to have enlightened men representing different faiths come together and hammer out a moral compact”
Almost all ‘democratic’ politicians in the first half of the 20th century held this same upper class view as Ghandi. They only gave women votes in the U.K. from the 1920s onwards. And the writer thinks only Indians had a ‘caste’ system that the supposedly democratic upper classes in the west widely supported!
This writer mistakenly seems to think democracy was widely supported back then – not a great historian methinks.
Your retort has some merit but is itself overstated, because Britain despite the supposed assumptions of (all?) its upper class HAD in fact established internal democracy largely by 1918 and completely by 1930. By all means defend Gandhi’s dislike of mass democracy, but don’t – just as with Churchill’s attitudes to race and Indian independence – pretend that this was a majority position.
I don’t think this is enough to cause you to cancel your subscription. unHerd will publish articles with which we disagree. Essential to the process is sometimes finding articles and authors shallow or smug. We take the rough with the smooth.
Your retort has some merit but is itself overstated, because Britain despite the supposed assumptions of (all?) its upper class HAD in fact established internal democracy largely by 1918 and completely by 1930. By all means defend Gandhi’s dislike of mass democracy, but don’t – just as with Churchill’s attitudes to race and Indian independence – pretend that this was a majority position.
I don’t think this is enough to cause you to cancel your subscription. unHerd will publish articles with which we disagree. Essential to the process is sometimes finding articles and authors shallow or smug. We take the rough with the smooth.
Gandhi was a complex man and not by any means a perfect one. He also had a certain authoritarian streak in that he would brook no opposition to his views or ways. This applied to his immediate family in the way he treated his wife and children as it did in the larger political context. It is not surprising and not necessarily unwelcome that there is a reassessment of this deified man – deified by the masses but encouraged by the powers that be, both imperial and Indian elite, insofar as it suited both their respective interests.
It is arguable that the Gandhi – Nehru approach suited the British who would have hated to have to cope with the militant approach to gaining freedom by Bose. I note an even mischievous comment here under that Kashmir did not belong to the subcontinent – a very British trait – without recognising that the name of the region comes from an ancient Hindu sage. If present day Pakistan qualified to be part of undivided India how could Kashmir be anything else?
Mr Anil falls in the trap of trashing Modi and the Hindu nationalists and then goes on to trash Gandhi for some of the same narratives the Hindu nationalists have issues with. The entire construct of post partition India which required the Hindu majority to eschew its aspirations after several centuries of political and cultural subjugation under the Muslims and latterly the British was doomed to fail. The notion of a secular India where the religious minorities were indulged with all their regressive tendencies tolerated and even respected while the Hindu majority had to give up control of its temples (and their massive wealth) and submit to Uniform Civic Code, was bound to create a backlash that we see today. The dexterity with which this imbalance was achieved by Nehruvian secularists was to divide the Hindu society by caste and create an anti majority Vote Bank which sustained them in power for well nigh six decades. All Modi has done is to to unify the Hindu community. BJP, once known to be a party patronised by the upper castes is now run by a Dalit that Modi is.
The period of six decades led to packing the academia and civic society elite with left wing Marxists and Socialists who found it second nature to loathe their Hindu antecedents in favour of imported ideologies – ironically something Gandhi opposed – and dress it up as “Gandhian secular values”. History books and teaching syllabuses were distorted or given selective slants, giving rise to the impression that the ancient Hindu civilisational legacy was nothing but superstitious make believe while the Mughal and British legacies made present day India what it was!
It is appropriate that Gandhi should be reassessed and what led to his assassination at least better understood if condemnable. Hindu nationalism, such as it is, will not ever be the vicious manifestation of what we see in majoritarian Islamic countries surrounding India. What we are witnessing is a backlash and a correction which is needed after 75 years of independence where the majority has had to accept that it can only manifest its aspirations apologetically. Those days are over. Modi or his predecessors in the BJP could not carry off this process on their own. This has to be owned by a large majority of the Hindu electorate. The very same people who accuse Modi of trying to foist majoritarianism on India happily accept the same in Kashmir which has witnessed ethnic cleansing of Hindus on a scale that dwarfs anything that has ever been inflicted on the Muslim minority in the rest of India. Or for that matter the plight of disappearing Hindu and Sikh populations in Pakistan and Bangladesh. If anything questions the Gandhi legacy it is that! He would have preferred Hindus to be marginalised in order to promote his philosophy of turning the other cheek. That cheek has got too red and beaten up now.
Well said, Mr. Bazely!
It reminds me of a comment made to me by a scriptwriter of one of the James Bond films, to the effect that academics are strangely reluctant to ask the artists who are responsible for a cultural artefact, for the thinking that shaped the artefact. The academics prefer to make their own assumptions.
The end result is much unintentional humour, especially when the academics are discussing comedy.
And thank you for the plug at the end of your piece. I will book my ticket!
A hatchet job indeed. Anil couldn’t seem to locate any mid-point between deification and character assassination.
Thats a great response Paul to this hatchet job on Ghandi, of whom I’m no loving fan, but I at least recognise he had skills and charisma. Like you I think this shallow character assassination based on modern standards is unworthy of Unherd. Combined with the series of Brexit failure articles, also lacking balance or a countering view, my Unherd subscription is teetering towards cancellation. This article is just sensationalist trash.
Just one example –
“Mass democracy was unwholesome, he felt — even imperialism infinitely preferable to the tyranny of the majority. The correct way of organising society was to have enlightened men representing different faiths come together and hammer out a moral compact”
Almost all ‘democratic’ politicians in the first half of the 20th century held this same upper class view as Ghandi. They only gave women votes in the U.K. from the 1920s onwards. And the writer thinks only Indians had a ‘caste’ system that the supposedly democratic upper classes in the west widely supported!
This writer mistakenly seems to think democracy was widely supported back then – not a great historian methinks.
Gandhi was a complex man and not by any means a perfect one. He also had a certain authoritarian streak in that he would brook no opposition to his views or ways. This applied to his immediate family in the way he treated his wife and children as it did in the larger political context. It is not surprising and not necessarily unwelcome that there is a reassessment of this deified man – deified by the masses but encouraged by the powers that be, both imperial and Indian elite, insofar as it suited both their respective interests.
It is arguable that the Gandhi – Nehru approach suited the British who would have hated to have to cope with the militant approach to gaining freedom by Bose. I note an even mischievous comment here under that Kashmir did not belong to the subcontinent – a very British trait – without recognising that the name of the region comes from an ancient Hindu sage. If present day Pakistan qualified to be part of undivided India how could Kashmir be anything else?
Mr Anil falls in the trap of trashing Modi and the Hindu nationalists and then goes on to trash Gandhi for some of the same narratives the Hindu nationalists have issues with. The entire construct of post partition India which required the Hindu majority to eschew its aspirations after several centuries of political and cultural subjugation under the Muslims and latterly the British was doomed to fail. The notion of a secular India where the religious minorities were indulged with all their regressive tendencies tolerated and even respected while the Hindu majority had to give up control of its temples (and their massive wealth) and submit to Uniform Civic Code, was bound to create a backlash that we see today. The dexterity with which this imbalance was achieved by Nehruvian secularists was to divide the Hindu society by caste and create an anti majority Vote Bank which sustained them in power for well nigh six decades. All Modi has done is to to unify the Hindu community. BJP, once known to be a party patronised by the upper castes is now run by a Dalit that Modi is.
The period of six decades led to packing the academia and civic society elite with left wing Marxists and Socialists who found it second nature to loathe their Hindu antecedents in favour of imported ideologies – ironically something Gandhi opposed – and dress it up as “Gandhian secular values”. History books and teaching syllabuses were distorted or given selective slants, giving rise to the impression that the ancient Hindu civilisational legacy was nothing but superstitious make believe while the Mughal and British legacies made present day India what it was!
It is appropriate that Gandhi should be reassessed and what led to his assassination at least better understood if condemnable. Hindu nationalism, such as it is, will not ever be the vicious manifestation of what we see in majoritarian Islamic countries surrounding India. What we are witnessing is a backlash and a correction which is needed after 75 years of independence where the majority has had to accept that it can only manifest its aspirations apologetically. Those days are over. Modi or his predecessors in the BJP could not carry off this process on their own. This has to be owned by a large majority of the Hindu electorate. The very same people who accuse Modi of trying to foist majoritarianism on India happily accept the same in Kashmir which has witnessed ethnic cleansing of Hindus on a scale that dwarfs anything that has ever been inflicted on the Muslim minority in the rest of India. Or for that matter the plight of disappearing Hindu and Sikh populations in Pakistan and Bangladesh. If anything questions the Gandhi legacy it is that! He would have preferred Hindus to be marginalised in order to promote his philosophy of turning the other cheek. That cheek has got too red and beaten up now.
Interesting that Mr Anil namechecks the National Theatre production last year. I actually played Gandhi in that production and i wonder if Mr Anil actually saw it or just read the blurb? Far from defending Gandhi’s assassin it tried to look at both sides of the modern nationalist argument through the historical lens of Godse and Gandhi. One of its main themes was how polarisation is a modern malaise that makes rational discussion impossible. This article strikes me as a particularly lazy and thoughtless example of just the problem we are facing. Of course Gandhi was human and displayed traits that are troubling to the modern, liberal mindset. He was also a political genius and, particularly a genius in the study and application of nonviolence which had massive ramifications in 20th Century politics from Martin Luther King to the nonviolent revolutions in Eastern Europe. I invite readers to check back at how much judgemental language Mr Anil uses: “smug”, “bizarre”, “shallow” etc. The classic signs of a politically motivated hatchet job. Rather than presenting facts and letting the readers decide, (which you might expect from someone who teaches at Oxford) he employs the age old techniques of the tabloid. I enjoy Unherd because it offers me thoughtful articles from people I often disagree with. “Thoughtful” is the key word here. I’m afraid this article doesn’t live up to that standard. Audiences seemed to enjoy the measured approach of Anupama Chandrasekhar, who wrote The Father and the Assassin. So much so that the play is being shown again in the autumn. I invite Mr Anil to come and see it this time, so that we can have a chat about it afterwards. Come along and make up your own minds.
“Mass democracy was unwholesome, he felt — even imperialism infinitely preferable to the tyranny of the majority. The correct way of organising society was to have enlightened men representing different faiths come together and hammer out a moral compact, rather than battle it out on the hustings.”
Gandhi would have made a perfect Brussels Eurocrat!
Tony Blair and his Davos buddies would certainly approve.
Nail, head.
Just like Brexiters were demonised as racist by the EU cartel – baselessly, and more a ruse to protect the entrenched, unelected “leaders” in Brussels.
The reason the “Hindu supremacists” are labelled as such is because they are finally kicking out the entrenched Gandhi-Nehru cartel.
What’s not much publicised is that Nehru, a pampered moron from a wealthy family, was elevated to be India’s leader over far more capable and strong leaders like Sardar Patel and Netaji Bose, thanks to Gandhi.
If the so called Hindu “supremacists” did 1% of what Muslims have done to minorities in Pakistan, Turkey or Iran….
‘So called Hindu supremacists’
The speeches by Modi, describing the supremacy of Hindus and their right to use violence against others are right up there with Hitler in the Munich beer halls. And equating it to violence rendered by others is the first dogwhistle of the fascists.
There are no speeches describing “supremacy” of Hindus or their “right” to use violence – the minor difference between Modi and 1930s Germany is, the population of Muslims has INCREASED and they still enjoy religious rights that are not offered to the Hindu majority! Just like the third Reich and Jews.
Here is a “dog whistle”
Uniform civil code.
Yes or no? Hindus day yes. Those who voted for Pakistan in 1946 demand no.
Incidentally, there does exist one region in India where the religious minority of that region has been exterminated in recent decades.
Kashmir
Guess who did the Hitlering there? Hindu supremacists was it?
Kashmir is an overwhelmingly Muslim province. India has resisted all attempts to come to an equitable solution.
Plus there is absolutely no serious doubt that Modi, as Chief Minister of Gujarat, at the least stood by during the ethnic cleansing and murder of over 1,000 Muslims in 2002.
I am very sympathetic to India by the way and love the country, just not blinded by denying all evidence that doesn’t support my particular echo chamber as you appear to be.
While one is moved to tears by your love for India, it seems that you have a one sided angst about the issues there, happy to ignore the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Your love for India is rather selective!
While one is moved to tears by your love for India, it seems that you have a one sided angst about the issues there, happy to ignore the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Your love for India is rather selective!
Kashmir is an overwhelmingly Muslim province. India has resisted all attempts to come to an equitable solution.
Plus there is absolutely no serious doubt that Modi, as Chief Minister of Gujarat, at the least stood by during the ethnic cleansing and murder of over 1,000 Muslims in 2002.
I am very sympathetic to India by the way and love the country, just not blinded by denying all evidence that doesn’t support my particular echo chamber as you appear to be.
There are no speeches describing “supremacy” of Hindus or their “right” to use violence – the minor difference between Modi and 1930s Germany is, the population of Muslims has INCREASED and they still enjoy religious rights that are not offered to the Hindu majority! Just like the third Reich and Jews.
Here is a “dog whistle”
Uniform civil code.
Yes or no? Hindus day yes. Those who voted for Pakistan in 1946 demand no.
Incidentally, there does exist one region in India where the religious minority of that region has been exterminated in recent decades.
Kashmir
Guess who did the Hitlering there? Hindu supremacists was it?
Well thanks for that brilliant nuanced assessment of Nehru, who had some major faults but was actually prime minister of India from 1947 to 1965. And to whom Patel was a hard nosed and effective lieutenant. Leadership is about choosing the right people.
However one of Nehru’s major blunders was the dishonest incorporation of Muslim majority Kashmir, a region largely not even truly part of the subcontinent, into India. This has led to endless trouble and tens of thousands of deaths ever since. Modi by abolishing it’s special status to appease his hard-line supporters has poured more fuel on the fire.
You also give an excellent moral disquisition on ‘why two wrongs DO make a right’. Inviting mobs to attack defenceless Muslims in Gujarat isn’t justified by the Taliban harbouring Al Qaeda or whatever.
Hindu nationalists didn’t actually like the British you know….
“Kashmir, a region largely not even truly part of the subcontinent,”
Missed geography classes in school?
What do you think Kashmir is named after?
Incidentally, the large numbers of Hindus and Buddhists in Jammu and Ladakh (also part of Kashmir state) never wanted “independence”
It’s only Kashmiri Muslims, like pretty much every other Muslim in south Asia, who demand separation and an Islamic state.
And it’s funny how Gujarat riots that happened after decades of continuous Muslim rioting in that state AND 70 Hindu train passengers being burnt alive by Muslims at Godhra (funny how nobody talks about them – it’s as if non Muslim lives don’t count) is “ethnic cleansing” even though the muslim population in that state INCREASED.
Kashmiri Muslims actually doing a genocide of Hindu minorities, completely wiping them out from their region (muslims still remain freely in Jammu and Ladakh though) for no reason but religious bigotry (the Kashmiri Hindus didn’t burn alive a single muslim) is “independence”.
Maybe India, Britain, France should also demand similar “independence” from certain minorities?
“Kashmir, a region largely not even truly part of the subcontinent,”
Missed geography classes in school?
What do you think Kashmir is named after?
Incidentally, the large numbers of Hindus and Buddhists in Jammu and Ladakh (also part of Kashmir state) never wanted “independence”
It’s only Kashmiri Muslims, like pretty much every other Muslim in south Asia, who demand separation and an Islamic state.
And it’s funny how Gujarat riots that happened after decades of continuous Muslim rioting in that state AND 70 Hindu train passengers being burnt alive by Muslims at Godhra (funny how nobody talks about them – it’s as if non Muslim lives don’t count) is “ethnic cleansing” even though the muslim population in that state INCREASED.
Kashmiri Muslims actually doing a genocide of Hindu minorities, completely wiping them out from their region (muslims still remain freely in Jammu and Ladakh though) for no reason but religious bigotry (the Kashmiri Hindus didn’t burn alive a single muslim) is “independence”.
Maybe India, Britain, France should also demand similar “independence” from certain minorities?
‘So called Hindu supremacists’
The speeches by Modi, describing the supremacy of Hindus and their right to use violence against others are right up there with Hitler in the Munich beer halls. And equating it to violence rendered by others is the first dogwhistle of the fascists.
Well thanks for that brilliant nuanced assessment of Nehru, who had some major faults but was actually prime minister of India from 1947 to 1965. And to whom Patel was a hard nosed and effective lieutenant. Leadership is about choosing the right people.
However one of Nehru’s major blunders was the dishonest incorporation of Muslim majority Kashmir, a region largely not even truly part of the subcontinent, into India. This has led to endless trouble and tens of thousands of deaths ever since. Modi by abolishing it’s special status to appease his hard-line supporters has poured more fuel on the fire.
You also give an excellent moral disquisition on ‘why two wrongs DO make a right’. Inviting mobs to attack defenceless Muslims in Gujarat isn’t justified by the Taliban harbouring Al Qaeda or whatever.
Hindu nationalists didn’t actually like the British you know….
Or a member of the WEF.
Tony Blair and his Davos buddies would certainly approve.
Nail, head.
Just like Brexiters were demonised as racist by the EU cartel – baselessly, and more a ruse to protect the entrenched, unelected “leaders” in Brussels.
The reason the “Hindu supremacists” are labelled as such is because they are finally kicking out the entrenched Gandhi-Nehru cartel.
What’s not much publicised is that Nehru, a pampered moron from a wealthy family, was elevated to be India’s leader over far more capable and strong leaders like Sardar Patel and Netaji Bose, thanks to Gandhi.
If the so called Hindu “supremacists” did 1% of what Muslims have done to minorities in Pakistan, Turkey or Iran….
Or a member of the WEF.
“Mass democracy was unwholesome, he felt — even imperialism infinitely preferable to the tyranny of the majority. The correct way of organising society was to have enlightened men representing different faiths come together and hammer out a moral compact, rather than battle it out on the hustings.”
Gandhi would have made a perfect Brussels Eurocrat!
This is pretty interesting. Not sure it makes me think the worse of Gandhi, of course he was flawed, but he was a real man, and he played a significant part in history. Flawless accounts are of no value, I suspect the current backlash is slightly over-correcting and that the further he sinks into the past, the more rounded the picture will be.
This is pretty interesting. Not sure it makes me think the worse of Gandhi, of course he was flawed, but he was a real man, and he played a significant part in history. Flawless accounts are of no value, I suspect the current backlash is slightly over-correcting and that the further he sinks into the past, the more rounded the picture will be.
I was onboard with the author’s sensible push against deification–something I think should even apply to Jesus of Nazareth and Gautama Siddhartha, etc.–until it became, if not demonization, mockery and dismissal. As another commenter notes above, he was a real man, one whom I consider great and inspiring overall, but not perfect. I also think he suffers from comparative recency and an augmented “data trail” among Great Spiritual Leaders–look at L. Ron Hubbard (just kidding, don’t–I think that mockery is deserved).
This article reads, at least in part, like a takedown piece, perhaps with a specific sponsoring motive (atheism? radical skepticism?). I read Gandhi’s autobiography and thought he was sometimes quite eloquent, at times revealing simplicity of perspective and strains of naivete, but not “a simple mind”. But data that is selectively gathered against any recent historical figure can seem to “prove” them to be reprobates, fools, or even moral monsters. This has become such a meanspirited, bullshit reflex in our time.
This is a great point. Gandhi wrote down pretty much everything in his head for the best part of 50 years. He also confessed to “Himalayan blunders” and defended the right to change his mind, especially from much of his early writing. It would be easy (but boring) to spend all day in a quote war to prove any point that one wanted to really. I believe the only thing one can do is to read the man yourself and then trust your gut.
Leave Jesus out of it please. He was divine.
The prayer he gave for all begins with “Our Father” not “Hey Jesus”. You’re welcome to believe in the literal co-equality of Jesus with God, and I won’t argue with you directly, but I can say what I want too.
My issue is with an emphasis on divinity over teachings and example. Jesus said “you can do these things and greater” not “I am the Only One so worship me”.
The prayer he gave for all begins with “Our Father” not “Hey Jesus”. You’re welcome to believe in the literal co-equality of Jesus with God, and I won’t argue with you directly, but I can say what I want too.
My issue is with an emphasis on divinity over teachings and example. Jesus said “you can do these things and greater” not “I am the Only One so worship me”.
This is a great point. Gandhi wrote down pretty much everything in his head for the best part of 50 years. He also confessed to “Himalayan blunders” and defended the right to change his mind, especially from much of his early writing. It would be easy (but boring) to spend all day in a quote war to prove any point that one wanted to really. I believe the only thing one can do is to read the man yourself and then trust your gut.
Leave Jesus out of it please. He was divine.
I was onboard with the author’s sensible push against deification–something I think should even apply to Jesus of Nazareth and Gautama Siddhartha, etc.–until it became, if not demonization, mockery and dismissal. As another commenter notes above, he was a real man, one whom I consider great and inspiring overall, but not perfect. I also think he suffers from comparative recency and an augmented “data trail” among Great Spiritual Leaders–look at L. Ron Hubbard (just kidding, don’t–I think that mockery is deserved).
This article reads, at least in part, like a takedown piece, perhaps with a specific sponsoring motive (atheism? radical skepticism?). I read Gandhi’s autobiography and thought he was sometimes quite eloquent, at times revealing simplicity of perspective and strains of naivete, but not “a simple mind”. But data that is selectively gathered against any recent historical figure can seem to “prove” them to be reprobates, fools, or even moral monsters. This has become such a meanspirited, bullshit reflex in our time.
As Sarojini Naidu, president of the Indian National Congress, once memorably observed, “It costs a lot of money to keep this man in poverty.”
As Sarojini Naidu, president of the Indian National Congress, once memorably observed, “It costs a lot of money to keep this man in poverty.”
He was always barefoot so the skin on his soles was extremely thick: his strange diet made him weak and skeletal: he was heavily into seances and the supernatural: his weird diet also gave him bad breath which he was embarrassed about. He was a super-calloused fragile mystic vexed by halitosis.
Priceless. Did you make that up yourself?
It was found etched on a Stonehenge rock.
It was found etched on a Stonehenge rock.
Priceless. Did you make that up yourself?
He was always barefoot so the skin on his soles was extremely thick: his strange diet made him weak and skeletal: he was heavily into seances and the supernatural: his weird diet also gave him bad breath which he was embarrassed about. He was a super-calloused fragile mystic vexed by halitosis.
It seems to me that we haven’t aged well.
It seems to me that we haven’t aged well.
“Hindu supremacists have stolen the show, while India’s Muslims, Christians, and Dalits are persecuted. ”
You mean the Hindu supremacists who are demanding equal treatment of religions by law (that currently heavily favours Muslims, who get to have their own special laws in “secular” India), protection of Hindus from genocide in Kashmir and the very minimum of courtesy towards Hinduism, such as not eating beef or stopping widespread aggressive conversions by Christian evangelists?
The Hindu supremacists who have appointed a Muslim and then a lower caste woman as president, and whose popular leader, Modi, is a lower caste?
Should we treat Muslims the way they treat minorities in Turkey, Pakistan or Saudi?
That’s the problem with “liberals”. Just like incessantly attacking whites for “racism” while giving a free pass to genuinely racist minorities, they will keep demonising Hindus – the only reason India respects all religions – while nicely glossing over what happens in those parts where Hindus are in a minority.
“stopping widespread aggressive conversions by Christian evangelists?”
Why should evangelism not be allowed? (Aggressive conversions in this case simply meaning that Christianity is more appealing to many people than Hinduism)
Because these evangelists prey on the poor in society, often relying on superstition and cash inducements. And the newly converted end up with aggressively anti Hindu tendencies.
“Christianity is more appealing to many people”
Which isn’t the case, is the point. Someone who is educated and not in poverty, and decides to convert to Christianity out of his or her free will? Would be perfectly fine, but rarely happens. Which is why, Christianity remains a low % of the population. Low, in most places, except in particular regions where evangelists have targeted mass conversions using huge funding (provided by whom is another question).
India, unlike pretty much every Islamic nation, were happy to allow change in religion. There is a good reason why there is outrage now though. The Christians involved in this racket aren’t your typical, ordinary, decent church going folk but a nasty bunch straight out of the worst of the Bible belt.
Religion relying on superstition, who would have thought.
proof please?
Religion relying on superstition, who would have thought.
proof please?
Because these evangelists prey on the poor in society, often relying on superstition and cash inducements. And the newly converted end up with aggressively anti Hindu tendencies.
“Christianity is more appealing to many people”
Which isn’t the case, is the point. Someone who is educated and not in poverty, and decides to convert to Christianity out of his or her free will? Would be perfectly fine, but rarely happens. Which is why, Christianity remains a low % of the population. Low, in most places, except in particular regions where evangelists have targeted mass conversions using huge funding (provided by whom is another question).
India, unlike pretty much every Islamic nation, were happy to allow change in religion. There is a good reason why there is outrage now though. The Christians involved in this racket aren’t your typical, ordinary, decent church going folk but a nasty bunch straight out of the worst of the Bible belt.
It’s always the same. The islamoleftists will shout from the rooftops about “BJP Hindu supremacists”, but they have nothing to say when Pakistan sentences Christians to death on confected charges of blasphemy.
It is genuinely weird how it has become so acceptable to have double standards.
Funnily enough, ordinary decent Christians in the West, who simply follow their religion quietly and with sincerity, are also regularly attacked and slandered by these people, who bend backwards for Islamic migrants. But they suddenly start shedding tears for the utterly horrible, backwards bunch involved in the conversion racket in India (while defending islam, where these conversion merchants would have a decidedly difficult time)
The Guardian’s coverage of Palestine is a prime example of this pathology.
The Guardian’s coverage of Palestine is a prime example of this pathology.
It is genuinely weird how it has become so acceptable to have double standards.
Funnily enough, ordinary decent Christians in the West, who simply follow their religion quietly and with sincerity, are also regularly attacked and slandered by these people, who bend backwards for Islamic migrants. But they suddenly start shedding tears for the utterly horrible, backwards bunch involved in the conversion racket in India (while defending islam, where these conversion merchants would have a decidedly difficult time)
“stopping widespread aggressive conversions by Christian evangelists?”
Why should evangelism not be allowed? (Aggressive conversions in this case simply meaning that Christianity is more appealing to many people than Hinduism)
It’s always the same. The islamoleftists will shout from the rooftops about “BJP Hindu supremacists”, but they have nothing to say when Pakistan sentences Christians to death on confected charges of blasphemy.
“Hindu supremacists have stolen the show, while India’s Muslims, Christians, and Dalits are persecuted. ”
You mean the Hindu supremacists who are demanding equal treatment of religions by law (that currently heavily favours Muslims, who get to have their own special laws in “secular” India), protection of Hindus from genocide in Kashmir and the very minimum of courtesy towards Hinduism, such as not eating beef or stopping widespread aggressive conversions by Christian evangelists?
The Hindu supremacists who have appointed a Muslim and then a lower caste woman as president, and whose popular leader, Modi, is a lower caste?
Should we treat Muslims the way they treat minorities in Turkey, Pakistan or Saudi?
That’s the problem with “liberals”. Just like incessantly attacking whites for “racism” while giving a free pass to genuinely racist minorities, they will keep demonising Hindus – the only reason India respects all religions – while nicely glossing over what happens in those parts where Hindus are in a minority.
Partition was, far and away, the defining moment of twentieth century South Asian history. To understand Partition, we need to understand Gandhi. I am not sure we do. The pro-Congress hagiographies don’t help, nor does Dr. Anil’s portrayal of him as a sort of medieval Pope.
It’s a shame that the decolonisation of India has fallen out of favour amongst academics. We need a reappraisal of why things happened the way they did, and why the various actors, like Gandhi, did and said the things they did.
Partition was, far and away, the defining moment of twentieth century South Asian history. To understand Partition, we need to understand Gandhi. I am not sure we do. The pro-Congress hagiographies don’t help, nor does Dr. Anil’s portrayal of him as a sort of medieval Pope.
It’s a shame that the decolonisation of India has fallen out of favour amongst academics. We need a reappraisal of why things happened the way they did, and why the various actors, like Gandhi, did and said the things they did.
Yes, a flawed character, no doubt, but why the need to burrow through all this historical chitchat? Is it fuelled by a desperate need to defend the indefensible intolerance of the Hindutva BJP & Modi.
Yes, a flawed character, no doubt, but why the need to burrow through all this historical chitchat? Is it fuelled by a desperate need to defend the indefensible intolerance of the Hindutva BJP & Modi.
The fighting between Hindus and Muslims up to Partition led to millions of deaths, result of over a thousand years of conflict. How many more would have been killed without Gandhi? There was also Jinnah, what was his influence on events?
The fighting between Hindus and Muslims up to Partition led to millions of deaths, result of over a thousand years of conflict. How many more would have been killed without Gandhi? There was also Jinnah, what was his influence on events?
The Gandhi film was big budget boring.
It did occasion one of the greatest exchanges in ‘Only Fools and Horses’:
Rodney: People become famous for a little while then they disappear. Like Renee and Renato…Simon Dee…
Trigger:…Or Gandhi.
Rodney: Yeah, yeah exactly. See, so maybe this time, it’s our…Gandhi?!
Trigger: Yeah. I mean, he made one great film and then you never saw him again.
A true precursor to today’s trigger warnings.
They should have used that in the director’s cut. To liven it up.
A true precursor to today’s trigger warnings.
They should have used that in the director’s cut. To liven it up.
I seem to recall when the film was nominated for an Oscar, one critic humorously noted that such a nomination was inevitable, since Gandi was what everyone in Hollywood wanted to be: famous, thin and tanned.
It did occasion one of the greatest exchanges in ‘Only Fools and Horses’:
Rodney: People become famous for a little while then they disappear. Like Renee and Renato…Simon Dee…
Trigger:…Or Gandhi.
Rodney: Yeah, yeah exactly. See, so maybe this time, it’s our…Gandhi?!
Trigger: Yeah. I mean, he made one great film and then you never saw him again.
I seem to recall when the film was nominated for an Oscar, one critic humorously noted that such a nomination was inevitable, since Gandi was what everyone in Hollywood wanted to be: famous, thin and tanned.
The Gandhi film was big budget boring.
The trouble with hatchet job history is that facts obscure understanding.
The trouble with hatchet job history is that facts obscure understanding.
Gandhi did have some pretty kooky beliefs, though none it has to be said as crazy as that of millions of people in the modern west who believe that men can become women just because they say so!
He also personally at some risk to himself prevented the slaughter of probably many thousands of people in Bengal in 1946nand on other occasions through personal visits to dissuade rioting and programs
Gandhi did have some pretty kooky beliefs, though none it has to be said as crazy as that of millions of people in the modern west who believe that men can become women just because they say so!
He also personally at some risk to himself prevented the slaughter of probably many thousands of people in Bengal in 1946nand on other occasions through personal visits to dissuade rioting and programs
This is a cheap and nasty hatchet job. To describe Ramachandra Guha’s biographies of Gandhi as ‘airport best-sellers’ is ludicrous. Where are Gandhi’s statues being taken down? Rejected in his country both by the neo-Fascist Hindutva people and leftist hooligans like Anil, Gandhi makes more and more sense to the rest of the world. In this, his fate is not unlike that other great enemy of caste privilege, Gautama Buddha.
Indeed. Except that Siddhartha lived in a society (or had the temperament or the grace or the inscrutable luck) to survive for about 40 years after his awakening, more than many outspoken Teachers.
Indeed. Except that Siddhartha lived in a society (or had the temperament or the grace or the inscrutable luck) to survive for about 40 years after his awakening, more than many outspoken Teachers.
This is a cheap and nasty hatchet job. To describe Ramachandra Guha’s biographies of Gandhi as ‘airport best-sellers’ is ludicrous. Where are Gandhi’s statues being taken down? Rejected in his country both by the neo-Fascist Hindutva people and leftist hooligans like Anil, Gandhi makes more and more sense to the rest of the world. In this, his fate is not unlike that other great enemy of caste privilege, Gautama Buddha.
The historian Faisal Devji, mentioned approvingly by Anil, said Gandhi belongs with Lenin, Hitler and Mao as one of the great revolutionary figures of our times. That’s the plain truth. He freed his country without picking up a weapon.
The historian Faisal Devji, mentioned approvingly by Anil, said Gandhi belongs with Lenin, Hitler and Mao as one of the great revolutionary figures of our times. That’s the plain truth. He freed his country without picking up a weapon.
Does that mean that they should be honest about their devils as well?
Does that mean that they should be honest about their devils as well?
“He detested democracy, defended the caste system, and had a deeply disturbing relationship with sex.”
Based.
“He detested democracy, defended the caste system, and had a deeply disturbing relationship with sex.”
Based.
The text of the article doesn’t take you above or beyond the headline, which itself is rather banal. A very half-assed job. Anyone with some general knowledge about this topic could’ve put this together. No thought went into it.
He was an overrated narcissist-of-colour and a bit of a nonce.
He was an overrated narcissist-of-colour and a bit of a nonce.