When rating this book, I am not sure what I am rating. The book was not actually written by Gandhi, but was compiled from his other writings (in some places, there as third person writing about Gandhi's views on a certain subject). When I rate the book, I could be rating how well it represents Gandhi's views. But I am not familiar enough with his writings to judge a book on that basis.
I disagreed with most of Gandhi's luddite views, so this rating isn't for his thoughts either. I think I am simply rating the book on how much it adds to my knowledge of our history. And boy, does it do quite a job there.
Even though a lot of what I read was on expected lines, I was surprised quite a bit at how extreme a luddite Gandhi was. Gandhi was against industrialization, English, modern medicine, contraception (?!!!) and if my reading is correct, even women working in finance and industry. He wanted children to be taught how to work with their hands before they were taught how to read or write. The most shocking thing I read in this book, however, is Gandhi's assertion that a woman could not be raped against her will. He sites the example of Sita, explaining how a pure woman would die of her own accord if she was unable to fend off a rapist.
Gandhi's weird brand of socialism seems laughable naive to me. Who would really give up all their wealth for the sake of the poor? And why is that the only morally correct choice? And his views on population control just freaked me out. He asserted that India was not overpopulated, and that properly managed, India's landmass could support twice the population it was supporting (it was around 300 million when Gandhi made this remark). Of course, he was right, but not in the way he imagined. He further went on to remark that the only morally correct method of population control was self-control, giving us the old procreation-not-recreation line.
There are places here and there where Gandhi makes sense (for example, his views on our slavish imitation of European clothing, or his views on the separation of religion and state), but I have to say I largely disagreed with him. I suppose he may have been a man for his times, and his moral courage helped free us from colonialism, but we would be living in some weird semi-socialist hell today if we had followed his teachings to the letter.
I suppose the only worthwhile thing one gets out of this book is a useful disillusionment with the over-deified and understudied father of the nation. But maybe I am not the first to make that remark.