April 4, 2025 - 7:00am
The all-consuming spectacle of the US administration dismantling the global trading system has resulted in another significant piece of news going under the radar. To coincide with the visit of Benjamin Netanyahu, Hungary has declared its intention to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has a warrant out for the Israeli Prime Minister’s arrest. In many ways, though, this is of a pair with the shock-and-awe announcements Trump made in the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday — a clear sign that we’ve seen the high point of the liberal rules-based international order and that the tide is on its way out.
That Hungary should leave the ICC is hardly surprising, given Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s long-running scepticism over the constraints of international law and the overreach of the organisations driving its expansion. In reality, though, almost every Western country faces the same issue of how to respond to unaccountable and remote bodies which freely impose their political framework without any concession to national interests. Is any European democracy going to dynamite its relationship with a vital strategic ally in the Middle East to placate the whims of a court acting vastly beyond its remit? Hungary’s approach is simply more honest than most.
Will other countries follow suit? Not over this, perhaps: it may be that the current conflict in Gaza is simply too divisive for leaders to have the confidence to take Hungary’s decisive stance. Likewise, there are still some governments — including Britain’s — which have not yet woken up to the reality of the new world order, or which retain a deep emotional attachment to the worldview that institutions like the ICC represent. But it seems certain that even the most fanatical adherents to institutionalist doctrines will make no real effort to enforce the ICC’s diktats. Over time, this will hollow out those same institutions, so that every overreach leads only to the further erosion of any real authority they once possessed.
Leaving aside the US, whose current aggressive reaction to perceived international constraints is rooted in a peculiarly American historical tradition and the neuroses of the Trump administration, this is how support for the postwar institutional system may collapse among other nations. Faced with a seemingly never-ending series of decisions that prioritise quixotic political campaigns and ever more expansive interpretations of their remit, while blithely ignoring vital national interests in this new and lawless world order, even the most committed institutionalists will at some point lose patience.
There may be no sudden crumbling away of the international courts, given that active departures are, for now, likely to be the exception rather than the norm. Yet, in the longer term, those institutions will have to adapt in order to take national concerns seriously. The alternative option is merely to wither away and die.
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.