Gandhi

by Leonard Everett Fisher

Gandhi by Fisher Soft Cover Edicion en Espanol

Genres: Biography, Nonfiction, History, India, Philosophy, Politics, Biography Memoir

312 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1950

Reviews

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gandhi: The Observer

To change something you love is the hardest. It requires you to set aside your love for the thing and be objective. Real change cannot be imagined otherwise. My favourite description of Gandhiji’s uniqueness of vision comes from Naipaul.




Naipaul says that Gandhi saw India like no other, he observed critically, with an impartial, almost colonial eye. And then he acted on them. And this is what made his vision of India so revolutionary. He questioned things that were taken for granted, things that were assimilated into our Idea of India.

Mohandas Gandhi: Mahatma, great-souled, father of the nation, deified, his name given to streets and parks and squares, honoured everywhere by statues, his portrait garlanded in every pan-shop, hung in hundreds of offices, bare-chested, bespectacled, radiating light and goodness, his likeness so familiar that, simplified to caricature and picked out in electric lights, it is now an accepted part of the decorations of a wedding house... he is nevertheless the least Indian of Indian leaders.

He looked at India as no Indian was able to; his vision was direct, and this directness was, and is, revolutionary. He sees exactly what the visitor sees; he does not ignore the obvious. He sees the beggars and the shameless pundits and the filth of Banaras; he sees the atrocious sanitary habits of doctors, lawyers and journalists. He sees the Indian callousness, the Indian refusal to see.

Why, for instance, was Gandhi so obsessed with human waste?

This is Naipaul's explanation:

It is a correct emphasis, for more than a problem of sanitation is involved. It is possible, starting from that casual defecation in a veranda at an important assembly, to analyse the whole diseased society. Sanitation was linked to caste, caste to callousness, inefficiency and a hopelessly divided country, division to weakness, weakness to foreign rule. This is what Gandhi saw, and no one purely of India could have seen it.

No Indian attitude escapes him, no Indian problem; he looks down to the roots of the static, decayed society.

And the picture of India which comes out of his writings and exhortations over more than thirty years still holds today: this is the measure of his failure, and ours…

[Kanika · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just finished reading ‘The Life of Mahatma Gandhi’ by Louis Fischer and one word that can describe my feeling at the moment is awe. We were taught in school about India’s history, about our freedom struggle, about our fearless leaders and their countless sacrifices. We studied the contributions of leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, Lajpat Rai et al to our struggle for independence, but as we grow up and become enmeshed in the humdrum of our daily activities, these names begin to have diminishing relevance in our lives.

So what brought me, a humble fiction reader, to pick up a 526 pager, non-fiction account of the life of M.K Gandhi, authored by a foreign journalist? To begin with, it was a debate with my friends about Gandhi, which started with the discussion about Nathuram Godse, the man who shot Gandhi on 30th January, 1948. Was Gandhi a saint or an evil genius? Was he a soft-hearted democrat or a dictator with a soft touch? Was he responsible for the partition of India or was he heart-broken over the vivisection of his beloved nation that he struggled so hard to keep unified? Was he a saviour of the backward classes or did he strive to keep them suppressed? These were some of the debatable points that came up. Even the biggest detractors of Gandhi among my friends reluctantly admitted that Gandhi “was not a bad man per se”.

My mind was made up. I couldn’t participate in a debate effectively unless I was well-equipped with the facts. I needed an objective, neutral biography on Gandhi. Louis Fischer was a journalist who worked in Europe and Asia. He spent considerable time in pre-independence India hobnobbing with prominent Indian leaders, not only Congressmen but also Muslim League leaders like Jinnah.
I am happy to report that I was not in the least disappointed. The biography presents an unbiased, objective narrative of the life of Gandhi. The facts are presented to the reader, allowing her to draw her own conclusions. The same action of Gandhi may appear genius to one reader while leaving another reader unimpressed. It is an excellent book for anybody interested in Indian history. To understand the psyche of the Indian society today, it is imperative to understand how it all began. I give a five star rating to this book. And here I list down some of the facts presented in the book that have left an indelible impression on my mind:

1. Mahatma Gandhi died on 30th January, 1948 as a private citizen without wealth, property, official title, official post, academic distinction, scientific achievement or artistic gift. Yet men with governments and armies behind the paid homage to the little brown man of seventy-eight in a loincloth. Some of the people who paid homage to Mahatma Gandhi included Albert Einstein, Pope Pius, the Dalai Lama of Tibet, the chief Rabbi of London, the United Nations, the Soviet Union, and the people of India and millions of people all over the world.

2. The Gita was Gandhi’s ‘spiritual reference book’, his daily guide. It condemned inaction and Gandhi condemned inaction. More importantly, it shows how to avoid the evils that accompany action; this, Gandhi asserted, is the central teaching of the Gita. Gandhi’s interpretation of the Gita was thus: The Gita is an allegory. The battlefield is the human soul where Arjuna, representing higher impulses, struggles against evil. ‘Krishna’, according to Gandhi, ‘is the Dweller within, ever whispering to a pure heart. The Gita described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind.’ Gandhi strived throughout his life to achieve detachment and become a Karma Yogi. In tough times, instead of becoming disheartened or angry, he turned the light towards his inner self, exploring his own shortcomings. He never accused or criticized others; he endeavoured to look inwards to find solutions to his problems. In today’s age of politicians who bicker and crib, who point fingers at others at every possible opportunity, do we have a single leader who comes close to Gandhi?

3. History is abundantly sprinkled with examples of the times when Gandhi insisted on travelling by third class train, sweating and rubbing shoulders with the masses, even when he could afford first class travel. He continued to do so even at the height of his popularity. He wanted to be treated like the common man. How could he travel by first class when millions in the country were starving and living in unhealthy conditions? How many Indian politicians of today can even conceptualize such sacrifices? Other examples of self-abnegation included living and working in heat when he could have lived in comfort, walking several miles under the unrelenting Indian sun, working manually with his hands and encouraging his family and friends to do likewise, denying his frail, old body food, water and medical treatment while fasting for his various causes, non-violence being the most prominent one.

4. Gandhi arrived in South Africa in May 1893. He went there on business, to win a law suit. When Indians in South Africa were faced with a legislation depriving them of their right to elect members of the legislature, Gandhi consented to stay a month to help resist the move. He ended up spending 20 years fighting for the rights of Indians in South Africa. He won. As a result of his mass civil disobedience movement, Hindu, Muslim and Parsi marriages were declared valid (which were earlier declared invalid by the government to check immigration), the tax on indentured labourers (most of them Indian) was abolished, and indentured labour influx from India was stopped. While individuals in several continents have practised passive resistance, nobody except Gandhi has ever led a successful, non-violent, mass, civil disobedience campaign.

5. Gandhi was his own greatest critic. He accepted his faults, his mistakes publicly. He never chastised anybody else as publicly or severely. Just the way he was harshest with himself, his severity of conduct extended to those closest to him – his family. When Gandhi left South Africa for India in 1901, the Indian community in South Africa gave him and his wife expensive gifts and jewellery. He set up a community fund for Indians in South Africa and donated all the gifts, including the gold necklace given to Kasturbai, to the fund. He was extremely critical about the faults of his sons; nobody was given special treatment because of being related to Gandhi.

6. Gandhi’s ashram in Admedabad housed many people apart from his family. When an untouchable family came to his ashram and asked to become permanent members, he welcomed them. Everybody else objected. He insisted that the family stays at the ashram. He even adopted the daughter Lakshmi as his own. Gandhi said, “I do not want to be reborn, but if I have to be reborn I should be reborn an untouchable so that I may share their sorrows, sufferings and the affronts levelled against them in order that I may endeavour to free myself and them from their miserable condition.” He took to cleaning the lavatories of the ashram. His disciples voluntarily joined him. Gandhi began calling them ‘Harijans’ (Children of God), and later named his weekly magazine after them. Once a leper came to the ashram. Everyone was scared to go near him for fear of contamination. Gandhi welcomed him and even gave him a massage.

7. Indian people worshipped Gandhi. When the train he was travelling in passed by towns and villages, people gathered in large numbers to see him and wave to him. The trains were delayed. They kissed the dust under his feet. They followed his call for passive resistance. At a protest, hundreds of people walked in without resistance to protest. Policemen charged the protestors with rods on their heads, but not one person lifted a hand to defend himself/herself. Many were admitted to the hospital with severe skull injuries and a few died. This was the extent of influence Gandhi had on the masses.

8. Gandhi was vehemently opposed to the partition of India. He was opposed to vivisection of any kind, based on considerations of religion, caste or creed. The Muslim League, lead by Jinnah, wanted nothing less than Pakistan. The non-Muslim minority in north-west Pakistan was close to 38%, and in the north-eastern area (now Bangladesh) was 48%. These figures show, claimed the Cabinet Mission, that partition would not solve the communal minority problems. Jinnah also wanted Punjab, Bengal and Assam to be included in Pakistan, but these areas had a large non-Muslim population. The Cabinet Mission advised a united India. Unable to have its way, the Muslim League under Jinnah, declared 16th August 1946 as Direct Action Day. Savage riots broke out all over the country. Jinnah’s threat of a civil war forced the Congress to accept the proposal of partition. Gandhi was opposed to the decision as he was against division of any kind.

9. When the communal riots broke out between Hindus and Muslims after partition in 1947, Gandhi went to Calcutta where the situation was the worst. He fasted and promised to continue his fast until people gave up the madness. He succeeded. The riots subsided. After that he went to Delhi where Muslims were being slaughtered by Hindus and Sikhs. Similar riots were taking place in Pakistan where Hindus and Sikhs were being butchered. He appealed to Hindus and Sikhs to not answer violence by violence, to allow Muslims to return to their houses. As he was harshest with himself and those close to him, he was severest with Hindus. To bring about unity and tolerance between different religions, he often read verses from the Koran during his evening prayers. Fanatic Hindus called him a Muslim lover. Fanatic Muslims accused him of opposing partition. Towards the end of his life, 95% of his mail was hate mail. Once somebody asked him, “If there is one God, should there be only one religion?” Gandhi answered, “A tree has a million leaves. There are many religions but all are rooted in the same God.” Gandhi was responsible for stemming riots that broke out after partition. If it wasn’t for him, many more innocent people would have lost their lives.

10. Hindus like Madan Lal (who had tried to assassinate Gandhi by throwing a grenade) and Nathuram Godse were incensed by the presence of Muslims at Hindu services and the reading of selections from the Koran. They resented Gandhi for criticising Hindus for indulging in rioting. Godse shot Gandhi at close range just before the evening prayers on 30th January, 1948. Gandhi fell, and died murmuring ‘Hey Ram’.

[Stephanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I turned the last page of Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World, I felt like I should say to it, “It’s not you. It’s me.”

The fact is, I had a hard time reading this book. This is one of those books that is better than my rating would indicate. My own personal issues prevented me from fully enjoying the book.

More than anything else, I think my problems stem from Louis Fischer’s writing style, not from his subject matter. Perhaps biography writing styles were different in 1954 when this was written. The current style tends to be journalistic, in which authors inject as little of their own opinions as possible, preferring to let the facts speak for themselves. Fischer, on the other hand, doesn’t hesitate to say things like, “[Gandhi was:] the greatest individual of the twentieth century, if not of twenty centuries…” (p.88).

I can’t help but roll my eyes at hyperbole like that. (Fischer does realize that Jesus is a product of the past twenty centuries, doesn’t he?) I don’t begrudge Fischer his obvious admiration for a very great man, but his constant gushing became a little tedious.

I also felt that the book would have been better titled simply Gandhi: His Message for the World. Fischer does an excellent job of expounding on Gandhi’s philosophies, to the point where dates and milestones are swept away by the force of Gandhi’s spiritual message. It would be difficult to make a timeline of the events in Gandhi’s life (especially personal ones like the birth of children) based on this book. Often, while reading the book, I would find this lack of concrete details disorienting. I realized that I, as a reader, need those sorts of particulars to tether me to a story.

Are any of these real problems? No. So Fischer tends to get excited about his subject. So the message overwhelms Gandhi’s personal story (Gandhi would no doubt approve of that). In spite of these personal stumbling blocks, Gandhi’s message of love and acceptance comes through loud and clear.

[Miroku Nemeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gandhi was a hero of my first teacher, my mother, and in reading this book, I now see that much of how she strove to raise me came from his example and teaching. I read a biography of the "Gandhi of the Frontier" Badshah Khan two days ago, and bought this book last night and read it in its entirety today because the example of the Muslim Pashtun leader who created a non-violent uniformed army of 100,000 Pashtun and his love and respect for Gandhi touched me deeply. As a Muslim who is tired of the senseless and futile cycles of violence that I see unfolding between Muslims and others today, as someone who has lived in the Middle East, I found the example of Gandhi's life, and the life of the Muslims like Badshah Khan and others, to be an amazing and timely inspiration--their examples need to be studied and taught today--as the ongoing cycles of violence spiral on and on, and so much blood and treasure are spent in war while they could be used to uplift and honor humanity.

If you have never read a biography on Gandhi, read....

If you have read a biography on Gandhi, reflect upon the lessons...even Malcolm X, may God have mercy upon his noble soul, respected Gandhi....

[Elliott Bignell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would like to avoid making this a review of Gandhi rather than of a book about Gandhi, but for the best possible reasons that is hard to do. The author knew Mohandas Gandhi personally, visited him repeatedly and, so far as I can ascertain, reflected his philosophy in this moving account as faithfully as still water. The book, in reading, seems to melt seamlessly into the Mahatma as if you were at his feet. There are three or five men whom I would call the greatest of the last century - Gandhi, Mandela and Churchill, plus perhaps Hitler and Stalin for their negative impact - and this book touches on the lives of four, only one of whom comes out a saint. It is odd to read of a saint of non-violent change at such a time, as at the time of writing someone close to me has met death, quite probably through violence, and I am struggling with the ferocity of a vengeful inner demon. Gandhi, and his philosophy transmitted through Louis's prose, have a hand on my shoulder, and it comforts me.

Gandhi was not born a saint. He had little patience for meretricious consistency and his morality grew and matured to become the Mahatma whose gentleness pried the grip of the British talon loose. He ate meat as a young man. He was impatient and demanding with his young wife, although she stayed with him for decades, while repudiating child marriages. He possessed towering certainty and sometimes naivety, a combination which conspired to make him great but must also have made him trying. He was curiously loyal to the British Empire and characteristically did not condemn us British even when he abandond that faith. He had a faith in human nature which ultimately betrayed him in the orgy of bloodletting which accompanied partition and in the persistence of untouchability. And eventually his faith met the ultimate betrayal at the hands of a lone, deranged killer who felt only rage at Gandhi's expression of love for his "brothers", India's muslims. The saint departed; humanity lowered its flag.

Fischer examines Gandhi's love and does not agree with all that he finds, but explains its power with eloquence. A world with a few more Gandhis might be a paradise. However... One cannot forgive his exhortation for European Jews to submit to the Nazi knife and thus win honour and dignity. Most did exactly this, and it led to their eradication. This cannot, one feels, be the way, and Fischer appears to agree. Gandhi himself admitted that non-violence cannot sway the policy of the totalitarian state, but he believed in it anyway, as he saw rewards in subsequent lives. My secular soul cannot accommodate this as it knows no afterlife and sees only the waste of this life, but it cannot deny the power of the moral message: Gandhi, the better Christian than any Christian. And face to face with an Empire, he prevailed.

This is the most moving biography I have read to date, and masterfully written. If I could do the John Wayne accent, I would finish: "Truly, this man is the Son of God."

[Stephanie · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the type of book that had a lot of potential. What ruined the book for me was Fisher's writing style. Throughout the entire book, Fisher idolizes Gandhi. There is not one passage of criticism which is unusual considering that Gandhi can be a controversial figure. His blatant worship of Gandhi made me highly critical of his telling of Gandhi. Another thing that made me highly critical was his lack of citations. Fisher reports that he spent a total of four weeks with Gandhi before his death. Spending a month with someone cannot make one an expert on their life. His lack of citations about specific thoughts and events make me doubt him and his book.

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Men and women and children knew, or felt, that when Gandhi fell by the assassin’s three bullets the conscience of mankind had been left without a spokesman.

Louis Fischer clearly loved Mahatma Gandhi. An entire nation loved him. How could such a tiny little man impress the world in such a way? Before I read this book I knew next to nothing about him. Only that he had strange diet practices (“Many such experiments taught me that the real seat of taste was not in the tongue but in the mind,”) was obsessed with spinning, and that he loved peace and India (“Prejudice cannot be removed by legislation…They yield only to patient toil and education.”)

This book spans his entire life, from his birth in 1869, to his schooling in England and time spent in South Africa, his many years in India, and finally his death in 1948. He did a great many things for his country, for their eventual independence from Great Britain, and most especially for the poorest among them. Even though this book deals very strongly with Gandhi’s philosophies - the history of his life being secondary, I still saw the underlying weakness of the man and his deep sense to overcome it, through his diet; through his fasting to make a point; through his celibacy. Through sheer will, he was able to overcome many obstacles, but he was not perfect. A foreigner once asked him, “How is your family?”

“All of India is my family,” Gandhi replied. Great men often make poor husbands and fathers. He was no exception, but by the end of this book I couldn’t help but forgive the man his faults. India may still have been under British rule today if not for his influence one hundred years ago. Can any person, no matter how small and meek change a nation? By the end of this book I felt that yes, they can. With all that's going on in the world today, I long for another Gandhi to reappear. No one seems willing to take up the mantle again. At least not yet.

[Terry · Rating 1 out of 5]

Poorly written - while Gandhi is just an extremely, overrated 'political-rock star."

His clear substantive shortcomings in sciences, economics and mathematics, for starters, leads to his myopic thinking and actions that are preoccupied mostly with subjective political ideologies and religiosity. His stubborn approaches had perhaps also contributed to the deaths thousands of people during his time. His failure then to deal with real critical issues and trends; such as: overpopulation, education, environment, resource depletion along with the consequences of exponential growth on the resultant human condition in his nation, and its economic longevity - indicates that he was not much more than another wordy lawyer predisposed to that so-called professions' primary mastery of snake-oil (sic) salesmanship.

Today, India has a massive overpopulation/ resource imbalance that should have been easy to extrapolate,identify and predict, even in he 1930's. In the end, the story will not end well for these countries, (includes Pakistan) again because of the failure of its leaders ,such as Gandhi to foresee this imminent imbalance and thereby further demonstrating the narrowness of their knowledge ,thinking and wisdom; for which future generations of Indians have and will sadly pay dearly for - in many terrible ways...

[Hannah · Rating 1 out of 5]

Over all I am not too pleased with this book. I'm very interested in biography and and pretty anything in that category but when I started reading this book I knew it was a mistake. Even the beginning of the book was boring. I read the first 100 pages and didn't like it. The reason I read that many pages was I was waiting for the book to get interesting but frankly it didn't. It had very small print that hurt my eyes and along with that it was flat out boring. There wasn't any cool or interesting things that happened. Now from reading other book I know he had a very interesting life but for some reason this book made it extremely boring. I don't like this book and I don't plan on reading it again.

[Raied Ali · Rating 2 out of 5]

Finaly aftar al thes ears

[Joseph Adelizzi, Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Admittedly I have a very poor memory. I read books and then what seems like just minutes later most of the information which had so thoroughly engrossed me is erased from my mind. However, Louis Fischer's book and, more so, Gandhi's life so captivatingly described therein, contains scenes, sayings, concepts, and descriptions which I'm sure will stay with me forever:

“In the midst of death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists.”
“Nor could one fail to notice, in each sentence and attitude, his lifelong loyalty to a few simple, widely flouted principles: the exaltation of means over ends; nonviolence; the primacy of truth; the curing qualities of trust; and consideration for the other person's doubts, time-lag, environment, and inner conflicts.”
“Gandhi's greatness lay in doing what others might do but don't.”

Finally there is the inerasable final moment of Gandhi's life: a bow of reverence followed quickly by a fatal shot, followed quickly by an exclamation of shock, a lament, a prayer, a greeting all captured with two final words - “Oh God.”

[Mikey B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gandhi is a Great of the 20th century. This book is more personal as the author had met Gandhi – its focus is on Gandhi the man. It cites his speeches and how Gandhi influenced events around him. Gandhi was a doer and the method and means were everything.

Compare Gandhi with the rise of communism (Lenin-Stalin) of the same time period and there is no doubt who and which approach is the more admirable and humane. Marxism-Leninism led to the death of millions.

The book describes many aspects of not just Gandhi’s struggle to make India independent but to free it of its vast internal problems – Hindu – Muslim conflict, to liberate untouchables. Surrounding all this was Gandhi’s non-violent philosophy and his commitment to truth.

My favourite quote in this book from Gandhi: “I am not interested in freeing India merely from the English yoke. I am bent upon feeing India from any yoke whatsoever”.

Gandhi, as this book aptly demonstrates, was a modern-day Christ-like figure.

[Rahul Khanna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am not wise enough to write a review of a book which is a biography M.K Gandhi. Nevertheless i will write a very compelling line from this book

Mountbatten told the royal empire society on 6 October, 1948, that in India Gandhi 'was not compared with some great statesman like Roosevelt or Churchill. They classified him simply in their minds with Mohammed and Christ'.Millions adored the Mahatma, multitudes tries to kiss his feet or the dust of his footsteps. They paid him homage and rejected his teachings.They held his person holy and desecrated his personality. They glorified the shell and trampled the essence. They believed in him but not in his principles.

[Lisa Butterworth · Rating 3 out of 5]

I Overall I really enjoyed this book, but I wish it would have been a little more linear (or something). I am glad to understand Gandhi and his life and philosophy better. I'm interested to read another biography now, from a more er. . historical perspective.

[Travis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply put: One of the best books I have ever read.

[Mohit · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not a great read.

[Cijo Mathew · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must-read book for those who wish to learn about Mahatma Gandhi from the point of view of an American journalist, who spent two weeks with the Politician-Saint (one week each on two separate occasions) and is obviously a big fan of the Mahatma. The extensive research he has done and the interviews he did with almost all the prominent leaders of the time, including the leaders of the Indian National Congress, the British Imperialist Government rulers of the time gives the book a lot of credibility. Someone who is looking for negative views on the 'Naked Fakir' might be disappointed with this book, as there would be barely any. Even the shortcomings of Gandhi are explained by Fischer in such a positive light, that one would end up thinking Gandhi was the reincarnation of Christ or Buddha! On the negative side, I would note its lack of perspective from the Muslim League leaders on the events that happened. Fischer has dedicated only one chapter to Jinnah and in that he recollects his failed interview attempt with him as he arrived late (though it is not clear if Jinnah was disappointed by the late arrival or the journalists obvious veneration of the Mahatma, who Jinnah never accepted as one).

[Dr.J.G.]

The editorial description of the book went

"This is a biography of Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948). He led the fight for Indian independence from British rule, who tirelessly pursued a strategy of passive resistance, and who was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic only a few months after independence was achieved."

The editorial description is notable in light of facts of history that took place around independence of India - for one thing Gandhi desperately wished to visit the newly partitioned land of Pakistan in west, to make efforts to bring peace where millions were being murdered; the then premier Liaqat Ali Khan issued a flat warning to the effect that he could not guarantee security of any sort to Gandhi who was seen as leader of Hindus by Muslim League officially, even though the people then living in the new nation did not all perceive it that way (in fact people of North West Frontier Province were extremely upset about not being included in India so much so the Viceroy's tour was cut short, and their leader - called Sarhad Gandhi, "Gandhi of frontier", due to his following Gandhi and his ways, was jailed by Pakistan government almost all his life); consequently Gandhi could not visit the region so recently a part of India and now torn with so much violence against Hindus, amounting to an exodus and a massacre both. Government of India could not ignore the warning and declaration by Liaqat Ali Khan about safety of life of Gandhi, and he was pleaded not to carry on his intention (whether he actually was denied a visa as most Indian dignitaries and artists can be summarily through the history of six odd decades of Pakistan is not the question) and he went east to Bengal instead, where he was successful in bringing peace within Indian borders.

Pakistan meanwhile attacked India in the northern state of Kashmir and Jinnah pretended it was all tribal hordes, and atrocities by attackers included rapes and murders of nuns in a convent; and while this was going on, Pakistan also demanded a larger share of the treasury while flatly refusing to share the debts of India before partition (you pay what India owes, give us share of what India had) and logically as well as strategically (paying huge sums to those that are attacking you is extreme folly for any sort of statesmanship, surely?) it was obvious to see why the Indian parliament, cabinet, everyone was in agreement that such demands were ridiculous.

Gandhi insisted, however, in giving in to the demands made by Pakistan, no matter how dishonourably they behave. When it was clear this would not be done he was unhappy and went on yet another fast for clearing of his soul. Naturally the government of India gave in.

Meanwhile refugees from west had been pouring in from Pakistan and their horrendous stories were becoming known in various corners of the nation where they could find a place to rest - refugees from west went everywhere, where ever they could, from Amritsar in Punjab to Delhi, U.P., Mumbai, Bangalore, name it. One such refugee camp near an army training school town near Mumbai a volunteer helping in the camp, a local person, went from anger to determination of not letting this continue, and he went and shot Gandhi after bowing down to him in reverence first.

Epithets ascribed to this man, a lonely person who hardly ever talked to anyone even within his family, range from crazy to fanatic to Hindu fanatic. The last is merely a convenient tool to use this man's background to crucify a tremendous culture with a very ancient tradition that is identified with India, something convenient for those that would destroy this open wide and deep treasure trove of a tradition that is a democratic faith, an inclusive culture, a tolerant and secular religion, a tremendous source of knowledge of mind and spirit.

An equal parallel would be to call John Wilkes Booth a "Christian fanatic", killers of Kennedys "American fanatics", the popes who ordered murder of Elizabeth I "Catholic fanatics", and so forth.

What could one call the people in US that attacked people and shops and so forth belonging to those that looked Asian, not only innocent of the 911 attacks but often not even of Islamic faith, then? The first person to be so murdered was a Sikh, wearing his faith's attire, taken by the killer to be a 911 attacker. What sort of fanatic should one call him, the killer who did not know the difference? Ignorant is merely accurate, but to parallel an acccusation of the sort in the editorial description one would have to find something more fitting.

So much for the official description of the book. Facts in short are more along the lines of following:-

This is a biography of Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948). He led the fight for Indian independence from British rule, who tirelessly pursued a strategy of passive resistance, and who was assassinated by a loner crazed by the harrowing tales of refugees, only a few months after partition which accompanied independence, along with the separated part Pakistan attacking India, demanding share of treasury and refusing to share debts, while Gandhi insisted (and was followed) in his wish that those demands be met, attacks by Pakistan continuing nevertheless. Pakistan had incidentally refused to allow Gandhi to enter the new country for a peace tour to attempt to stop the massacres, declaring the government of Pakistan could not guarantee security of Gandhi's life if he visited, since the Muslim League (- which carried out a massacre of a few thousand with knives in Calcutta in 1946 on a day named Action Day by Jinnah before Gandhi broke and agreed to the demand of partition of India into a separate nation for Muslims) called Gandhi a "Hindu leader".

[Srijan Chattopadhyay · Rating 4 out of 5]

A comprehensive, easy-to-digest introduction for the uninitiated, and slices of achromatic viewpoint-induced anecdotes for enthusiasts.
The vibrant outpourings of agitated emotions, human failings, and nonchalantly ruthless repressions are aptly tabled in the times of the civil disobedience and Poona Pact.

Will surely opt for his " A week with Gandhi".

Happy reading.

[Jordan McMaster · Rating 5 out of 5]

I sense that this is one of those books that will stay with me my entire life. It is a relatively brief overview of the life and message of Gandhi, and a perfect introduction for anyone (like myself) who has never studied Gandhi before. It left me wanting more -- more Gandhi, more of his goodness, more of his strength, more of his passion, more of his love.

[Bubu · Rating 1 out of 5]

ეს კაცი არ წერს კითხვადად რააა

[Cody Allen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gandhi was not always the spiritual hero of Indian independence that we know him as. Once upon a time, he was a struggling youngster in the midst of a chaotic world, trying to find his rightful place in it. He was born in 1869 and married his wife and life-long companion at the tender age of 13, before puberty or adulthood had yet to embrace him. His first son was born when he was 18, the same year that he sailed to London in order to study law. While in England, he adopted the local culture as his own, yet ultimately found it empty. He had hoped to establish the foundations of a career as a lawyer, but after several years of study, he returned home the day after passing the bar. Back in India, he took his first lawsuit, but could not bring himself to speak in front of the court due to his nearly crippling shyness and gave the case to a colleague. The disappointment he felt was overwhelming, and he jumped at the chance to leave India once again. When he was 24-years-old, he traveled to South Africa to work for an Indian law firm. Again, he tried to embrace the local culture and act within it—South Africa and India were both English colonies—and again, it didn’t feel right.

Within his the first week, he had what would turn out to be a life changing experience—one that pushed him unceremoniously off a train and into the service of justice. Gandhi had been assigned to a lawsuit that required him to be in Pretoria, the capital of the Transvaal province in South Africa. He bought a first class train ticket from his temporary home in Durban (a days travel south) and rode the first leg of the journey in his compartment in peace. In the remote town of Maritzburg, a white man boarded, saw Gandhi in first class, and brought the railway conductor to his train car, demanding that he remove himself and sit in the baggage car. Gandhi protested and stayed; he had a ticket that rightfully afforded him the first class seat. As a violent result, the police were fetched and he was forcibly removed, left to sit and shiver in the cold outdoor train station throughout the rest of the night. All of this was done because of the color of his skin; Indians and blacks were not equal citizens to whites.

The injustice Gandhi felt at this moment was a major catalyst for his progression into a spiritual leader fighting for Indian rights and independence. It forced him to look beyond his own personal needs and confront the terrible suffering of his impoverished and exploited countrymen and countrywomen. He began to develop his theory of satyagraha, which translates to “holding firmly to truth.” This would become his creed.

In practice, satyagraha is a method for resolving conflict, whether it be personal, communal, political, or other. Typically, conflict between opposing parties can be ‘resolved’ only by the acknowledged dominance of one contender over the other. If there is a winner, there must likewise be a loser. Even compromise rests on this conclusion, since compromises are similarly just attempts to get as much as one can at the other’s expense. Satyagraha challenges this assumption. Satyagraha is not aimed at addressing grievances, but at resolving the underlying sources of conflict, enmity, and distrust between conflicting parties. Its goal is to show one’s adversary the common values both share, and the reality that both have more to gain in harmony than in discord. “I have been convinced” Gandhi once said to a gathered crowd, “that if you approached people with trust and affection, you would have ten-fold trust and thousand-fold affection returned to you.” Satyagraha does not exclude the opponent from the solution, but rather brings them in as a participant in the search for the ultimate truth—the one that exalts both sides.

This is the foundation for all of Gandhi’s work in nonviolent resistance. Whether satyagraha took the form of large scale mass protests against the British imperialists or small scale disagreements between a husband and wife, both are examples of opportunities for finding mutual love and understanding. This is the same example followed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his campaign for equality in the United States, the same as Nelson Mandela in his quest to end apartheid in South Africa. It is possible to love one’s enemy, even as you condemn their actions against you. Eventually they will find empathy in your experience, for it is impossible to watch others endure suffering without feeling a connection to their humanity. The mirror neurons in our brains are evolutionarily wired to do this—to empathize with our fellow humans. This is what Gandhi taught, once writing that “if you want something really important to be done you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move the heart also.”

It was around this time (the turn of the 20th century) that Gandhi stopped conforming to English culture and instead adopted non -materialism and celibacy. “In renunciation, it is not the comforts, luxuries and pleasures that are hard to give up. Many could forgo heavy meals, a full wardrobe, a fine house, et cetera; it is the ego that they cannot forgo. The self that is wrapped, suffocated, in material things—which include social position, popularity, and power—is the only self they know and they will not abandon it for an illusory new self.” Gandhi chose this new self, and in place of these material things, he substituted important relationships. In place of his highly-paid position as a lawyer, he instead cultivated his freely-given service to others.

After 20 years in South Africa, Gandhi returned to India in 1915, and his pledge of nonviolent resistance to injustice started a new chapter. By now, he was a man of 45, and ready for the challenges ahead. He began organizing poor farmers and laborers to protest heavy taxes and discrimination, preaching his methods of nonviolence and satyagraha despite pockets of violence springing up all over the country.

One of his biggest problems in liberating India from British rule was the religious division between the Hindus and the Muslims; neither wanted to see the other in power if the English were to abdicate. This was a tremendous problem and one that Gandhi meditated on for years. His solution, and what became the biggest symbolic movement towards Indian independence, was the now infamous Salt March. Salt was heavily taxed by the British, and Gandhi reasoned that boycotting the tax on a stable good like salt was the best way to bring all Indians together. Whether you were Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jain, or Jewish, you used salt. Salt was a dietary staple for both rich and poor Indians, and much like the Boston Tea Party that ignited the American Revolution (which was in response to a similarly imposed English tax on tea in the American colonies), the Salt March was Gandhi’s way of folding all of his countrymen together into one coalition and sparking the desire for revolution within them. He led tens of thousands of his followers on a 24-day, 240-mile march to the seaside town of Dandi, giving spiritually uplifting speeches at villages all along the way. Upon arrival, he lifted a handful of salt from the sea over his head and exclaimed: “With this, I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire!”

Gandhi craved a psychological metamorphosis for his people, one that would give them inner freedom first and then hopefully outer freedom as well. Once the nation acquired individual dignity, he believed, they would insist on better living conditions and nobody would be able to hold them in bondage. While the result of the Salt March was 60,000 arrests, including Gandhi himself, (he spent a total of 2089 days in Indian jails—almost six years—and 249 days in South African prisons), the ultimate result was promising. The Salt March inspired his people with hope for a better future, one they could collectively attain. British imperial rule was put on the clock, eroding faster and faster with every passing season, until India eventually won their long-sought and well-earned independence in 1947.

By this point in his life, Gandhi owned only a few bowls and spoons, his sandals, a watch, a book of songs, and his glasses. He had given up everything else, including himself, to the causes of his people. First, Mahatma Gandhi changed himself. Then, he changed the world.

[Tori · Rating 2 out of 5]

Occasionally there comes along a person who can captivate the hearts and minds of the people around him. Rarely does someone come along that can captivate an entire country. Rarer still a person who can capture the attention of the world. Mahatma Gandhi appears to be one of the latter.
I was intrigued when I picked up Louis Fischer's Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World. I knew next to nothing about Mahatma Gandhi, and was interested in reading a biography with an unbiased view - no pre-conceived notions, no opinions, just the book and me. It was an enjoyable way to read a biography. If only the book itself was more interesting.
The writing style was my main hurtle with the novel. It felt over simplistic. There was no variation, no depth: it didn't draw you in. At any given point I could have set the book aside and never picked it up again. The thought that came to my mind was that it felt somewhat like the reading comprehension tests that we've all come across in school.
The ending was a flop. It was, like most biographies, his death. But there was no information on how people felt about his passing, what changes took places because of a national icon suddenly being gone, etcetera. Actually, there were one or two instances where I thought Lewis Fischer passed over important information, while at others he mentioned things that were completely trivial, or that had already been mentioned before.
One thing that sets this book apart from other biographies is the fact that the author actually went and talked to Gandhi. Therefore, he didn't have to get his information second hand (Though three reference pages in the back do show that he did research his subject).
The author obviously thought that Gandhi was a great man. But truthfully, Gandhi confuses me. He was a visionary, and someone who was able to captivate the hearts and minds of many. But for all that, he was often near sighted at times. Having his views, he expected everyone else to embrace them. He was also contradictory at times, especially in his theology. He called himself a Hindu, a Moslem, a Jew, and a Christian - all at the same time. That is physically impossible, as I'm sure you can imagine.
But that's who he was. He took what he wanted from everything - religions, books, you name it - and that was that for him. He'd read a book and pull out meanings that the author didn't really have in there, and ignore the rest of the message.
That's where Gandhi failed. He didn't realize the impossibility of some of these religions, and therefore the whole world, living in peace. No matter how much he had everyone's attention, and sometimes even affection, he couldn't break down their religious principles and ideas. Most religions just don't work that way.
I realize, looking back now, that I got a rather good view of Gandhi from reading this book. Maybe not so much of his personal life, but definitely his beliefs and mindset. And so, Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World does get it's main purpose done though the fact that it doesn't do so in an engaging manner is regrettable. If you're trying to research Gandhi, this book might be a good one for you to pick up.

[Jared · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have to admit that it took me three tries to finish this book. I think I started it at least two years ago. The first two times I got about 100 pages in and lost steam. The content was mostly interesting, but I was getting bogged down by a lot of the political details. I started over once again from the beginning, convinced that reading this biography would be "good for me." This time, after about 200 pages, I couldn't get myself to read anything else until I finished.

Gandhi has to be one of the most intriguing individuals to grace our planet. His life was an example of unfailing devotion to principles of non-violence, religious tolerance, self-discipline, relief of suffering, and the brotherhood of humanity. We know him well for his role in bringing about the independence of modern India, but it was interesting to learn that this cause was secondary to the aforementioned principles.

Although I don't share all his beliefs or behavioral codes he promoted, there were many reasons to be impressed. A few thoughts that will stick with me for a while:

* He was a Hindu, and one of the best examples of Christian behavior who ever lived.

* He was quite open-minded and tolerant of others, even those who fought against him. At the same time, there was a stubbornness about him that seemed to be at the core of his self-mastery efforts and his commitment to principles he believed in.

* His attainments in self-mastery were remarkable, yet it was an ongoing process that included setbacks along the way as he worked to master physical appetites and passions. The hard-fought process resulted in his spirit having considerable power over his flesh.

* He persisted in what he knew was right, even when multitudes abandoned his views.

Gandhi the man gets 5 stars, the book itself gets 3 stars, for an average of 4 stars. And I get my own gold star for sticking with it.

[Heidi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gandhi's life is one I've been itching to learn more about for a long time, and his life surprises me in many ways. I knew little of how he got his point across to people, and was especially surprised by his beliefs (I didn't know he wasn't completely Hindu, nor that he was inspired by the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5).
While there are things I disagreed with on Gandhi's views, I did appreciate his dedication and drive to do what he believed right, and for the best of others. He did much of what he did in deep love.

As for Fischer's writing, I think I liked the beginning and ending of this more so because the narrative followed Gandhi's life quite descriptively and helpfully. I learned about who he was as a man. It felt slow through the middle portion of the book probably because the history and politics would lose me, but I'm not saying it shouldn't have been, since the background matters and Gandhi's life was so intertwined with the political and societal climate of India. I just have a preference for biographies that don't read like a history textbook alone. I like to read about the person on a more personal level.

I learned from it to listen to one whose ideals and beliefs may be different than my own, whilst still disagreeing pleasantly. It was a fascinating read for the subject, Gandhi, but the writing just felt slow halfway through. The passion of the author for Gandhi and Gandhi's movement. however, is evident, especially in the story's beginning and ending. (Sidenote: The ending was very well-written, but I have mixed feelings, because I want to know what happened AFTER his assassination. The upside: It urges me to research and learn more on my own.)
Overall, a good, very thought-provoking read, but not in my top ten.

[Raman Sihag · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author way of writing- 0 star. He go on writing single sentence into paragraphs. Very 4 5 6 words the ‘commas’. It’s confusing. Not at all clear and easy to read.
About content - 2 stars. No criticism. It’s plain. Not analytical in multiple dimensions. Just goes on praising & praising.
Errors- many factual errors indeed. For eg- he wrote “ Bhagat Singh fired pistol rounds in legislative assembly after throwing bombs”. This is Absolutely false. He never fired and didn’t intent to hurt anyone there.
Why book got 2 stars - just because of magnetic personality of Gandhi (though fallible , full of errors in many ways. Eg His ideals won’t work in hitlers Germany, too much idealist rather pragmatic). Otherwise ZERO STAR for the book

[Galazzoboy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I was not very fond of the last half or so of the book, the first part in which Ghandi's philosophies and beliefs were explained intrigued me. The story of Ghandi and all his inspiring achievements is a truly riveting tale of devotion and real faith, which is something rarely seen today. Greed, desire, corruption.... none of these things penetrated the seemingly invincible barrier that was built in his highly disciplined mind. He had unbending faith in both himself and in his countrymen, an awe-inspiring trust mustered by only the bravest of men. Ghandi was a true master of the soul.

[Arafat · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had been planning to read about Gandhi for a very long time. Finally, I got hold of this book, which is written very well. However, the writer has compromised his status as a biographer in his bid to write about Gandhi. He has overlooked many events in Gandhi's life (esp. the paradoxical views of Gandhi in a lot of matters). Overall, the book is great as it makes you walk and talk with Gandhi in a virtual setting but lacks an incisive description of many aspects of Gandhi's life. Because of this reason, i have rated it low!

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a 620-page book on Indian politics this is remarkably readable. It's also pretty even-handed and gives a good idea of the man as well as the Mahatma. Fischer doesn't gloss over some of Gandhi's less appealing aspects (his relationships with his own sons, for example), but you can see why he inspired a devoted following. What mainly come through are his compassion and determination.
I like the way Fischer handles the ending, too.

[Reece Willcox · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting, just had hard time getting through it. I wasn’t a huge fan of author’s writing style.