What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gandhi Nobody Knows
Argues that Attenborough's film overrates Gandhi's achievements and that historical facts contradict the portrayal of Gandhi as a saintly man
- GenresBiography
Paperback
Published January 1, 1983
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 28, 2010
First I read a portion of Gandhi's autobiography, then I watched the movie, and then I read this book which was a direct response to the movie itself. Grenier is quite harsh in his criticism, but he had several valid poinsts that balance out the adulation in the movie.
Some of the major points in this book are:
1. The movie Gandhi is pacifist propaganda paid for and created by the Indian Government.
2. Gandhi contradicted himself throughout his life and writings. Go read them yourself.
3. You can't judge his Hindu culture by our Western/Christian standards. Indian culture is not enlightened nor better than the West. It is barbaric in many instances, especially their caste system.
4. He was not a saint, nor a Savior and Messiah. He was more of an Indian Celebrity. It is a wrong to compare Gandhi to Jesus. Gandhi did good things in his life, but also many terrible & immoral things, repulsive by our Western/Christian standards.
5.His actions may have delayed Independence by over 25 years.
6. Gandhi was so Tyrannical, his wife remained illiterate, his Children were destroyed by his beliefs, especially when it comes to Sex.
7. Gandhi himself was racist towards the "Untouchables" caste system and towards blacks.
If you have ever watched the movie Gandhi, I recommend that you read this book so you can see the other side of the argument about who he really was and what he did. It would be best also to read some of his own writings to get a more balanced view of the man.
Some of the major points in this book are:
1. The movie Gandhi is pacifist propaganda paid for and created by the Indian Government.
2. Gandhi contradicted himself throughout his life and writings. Go read them yourself.
3. You can't judge his Hindu culture by our Western/Christian standards. Indian culture is not enlightened nor better than the West. It is barbaric in many instances, especially their caste system.
4. He was not a saint, nor a Savior and Messiah. He was more of an Indian Celebrity. It is a wrong to compare Gandhi to Jesus. Gandhi did good things in his life, but also many terrible & immoral things, repulsive by our Western/Christian standards.
5.His actions may have delayed Independence by over 25 years.
6. Gandhi was so Tyrannical, his wife remained illiterate, his Children were destroyed by his beliefs, especially when it comes to Sex.
7. Gandhi himself was racist towards the "Untouchables" caste system and towards blacks.
If you have ever watched the movie Gandhi, I recommend that you read this book so you can see the other side of the argument about who he really was and what he did. It would be best also to read some of his own writings to get a more balanced view of the man.
July 16, 2015
After reading this short book, I feel embarrassed for anyone who bothers to quote Gandhi to support their views. They are clearly uniformed about what this man said and did. As the author points out -
"If you do not know these things about Hindus, and about Gandhi, you do not really know much about India. You have been getting your information from pacifists and Gandhi groupies, who have been keeping you in a state of retarded innocence."
Gandhi was, to say the least, disturbed. Very disturbed! In one of the closings paragraphs of the book, the author describes Gandhi as being, "...erratic, irrational, tyrannical, obstinate." I would add hypocritical.
"When Gandhi's wife lay dying of pneumonia and the British doctors insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her, Gandhi refused to have this alien medicine injected in her body and simply let her die." The author then goes on to point out that shortly after this Gandhi accepted treatment of "the alien medicine quinine" and even allowed British doctors to perform an appendectomy on him.(Pg 34)
There are numerous other examples of Gandhi's inconsistency and hypocrisy throughout the book.
The author did try to give Gandhi credit where credit was due. But some will protest that the tone of the book is quite negative and it is but I believe that's not because the author was trying to bash the man but just reporting a more accurate account of Gandhi, his life, and his declarations than what is promoted in Attenborough's fallacious film.
Regardless of whether you read the book or not, I'd highly recommend avoiding the 1982 film like the plague. It's terribly inaccurate and in many places portrays a Gandhi who is polar opposite of his character and personality in real life.
"If you do not know these things about Hindus, and about Gandhi, you do not really know much about India. You have been getting your information from pacifists and Gandhi groupies, who have been keeping you in a state of retarded innocence."
Gandhi was, to say the least, disturbed. Very disturbed! In one of the closings paragraphs of the book, the author describes Gandhi as being, "...erratic, irrational, tyrannical, obstinate." I would add hypocritical.
"When Gandhi's wife lay dying of pneumonia and the British doctors insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her, Gandhi refused to have this alien medicine injected in her body and simply let her die." The author then goes on to point out that shortly after this Gandhi accepted treatment of "the alien medicine quinine" and even allowed British doctors to perform an appendectomy on him.(Pg 34)
There are numerous other examples of Gandhi's inconsistency and hypocrisy throughout the book.
The author did try to give Gandhi credit where credit was due. But some will protest that the tone of the book is quite negative and it is but I believe that's not because the author was trying to bash the man but just reporting a more accurate account of Gandhi, his life, and his declarations than what is promoted in Attenborough's fallacious film.
Regardless of whether you read the book or not, I'd highly recommend avoiding the 1982 film like the plague. It's terribly inaccurate and in many places portrays a Gandhi who is polar opposite of his character and personality in real life.
September 16, 2021
One of the things that has always been taken for granted is that Gandhi was a great and moral man. Even pro Churchill biographers were perplexed at how much Churchill disliked him. Grenier is the first writer that I have read that can put into words what Churchill was seeing when the rest of the world did not. Perhaps the genius of Gandhi was his lack of consistency. When you take all sides at one time or another your proponents can find a quote that suits any circumstance.
The book began as a magazine review of the Richard Attenborough’s film Gandhi (1982). Grenier says the film was a bought and paid for propaganda piece by the Indian national government. India considers the hagiography of Gandhi great for national prestige even though the country’s leaders do not govern using any of Gandhi’s famous maxims. Gandhi’s reputation offers great cover for politics as usual. And further, Gandhi himself was just a media creation and when you learn of the abuse he brought upon his wife and kids, you wish you had his PR man. Penicillin would have saved his wife’s life but Gandhi forbade it for being foreign. Meanwhile, he took western medicine to save himself from malaria. Disgusting.
How many times did this Gandhi praise Hitler and offer him friendship? That’s what passivism gets you. More Hitlers. And what Grenier hates is that there isn’t a single moment in the film where Gandhi is questioned as unreasonable or naïve or wrong-headed. Gandhi knows best. I just thought the movie was boring when I saw it as a kid. I didn’t realize I was watching a fairy tale. But I should have been alerted by Churchill’s weariness of Gandhi. Churchill understood people better than his contemporaries.
I don’t know enough about Indian history to say that Gandhi didn’t make it a better place. I would hope that he did. I would recommend the book even if you haven’t seen the movie. It balances the lopsided view prevalent elsewhere.
The book began as a magazine review of the Richard Attenborough’s film Gandhi (1982). Grenier says the film was a bought and paid for propaganda piece by the Indian national government. India considers the hagiography of Gandhi great for national prestige even though the country’s leaders do not govern using any of Gandhi’s famous maxims. Gandhi’s reputation offers great cover for politics as usual. And further, Gandhi himself was just a media creation and when you learn of the abuse he brought upon his wife and kids, you wish you had his PR man. Penicillin would have saved his wife’s life but Gandhi forbade it for being foreign. Meanwhile, he took western medicine to save himself from malaria. Disgusting.
How many times did this Gandhi praise Hitler and offer him friendship? That’s what passivism gets you. More Hitlers. And what Grenier hates is that there isn’t a single moment in the film where Gandhi is questioned as unreasonable or naïve or wrong-headed. Gandhi knows best. I just thought the movie was boring when I saw it as a kid. I didn’t realize I was watching a fairy tale. But I should have been alerted by Churchill’s weariness of Gandhi. Churchill understood people better than his contemporaries.
I don’t know enough about Indian history to say that Gandhi didn’t make it a better place. I would hope that he did. I would recommend the book even if you haven’t seen the movie. It balances the lopsided view prevalent elsewhere.
August 4, 2024
PROBABLY THE MOST "CRITICAL" PERSPECTIVE ON GANDHI
Richard Grenier (1926-2002) was a neoconservative cultural columnist for The Washington Times and a film critic for Commentary and The New York Times. He also wrote books such as 'Capturing the Culture: Film, Art, and Politics,' 'The Marrakesh One-Two,' etc.
This 1983 book is highly critical of the portrait presented in the movie Gandhi; he wrote in the Introduction, "So when Indians, doing their utmost to foster the new wave of pacifism in the West... converted Gandhi... into a kind of Saint Francis of Assisi, Americans swallowed it whole. At least, American film critics swallowed it whole, and Hollywood's Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seemed to swallow it whole as well..."(Pg. xxi) After quoting Gandhi on Hiroshima, he says, "One second we are promised that prayerful action will open our enemy's eyes, the next that it will guarantee us martyrdom. The reader can see why I am reluctant to accept lessons in conduct from Mr. Gandhi." (Pg. xxvii)
He points out, "when Gandhi's wife lay dying of pneumonia and British doctors insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her, Gandhi refused to have this alien medicine injected into her body and simply let her die. (It must be noted that when Gandhi contracted malaria shortly afterward he accepted for himself the alien medicine quinine, and that when he had appendicitis he allows British doctors to perform on him the alien outrage of an appendectomy." (Pg. 34)
He says sarcastically, "I cannot honestly say I had any reasonable expectation that the film would show scenes of Gandhi's pretty teenage girl followers fighting 'hysterically'... for the honor of sleeping naked with the Mahatma and cuddling the nude septuagenarian in their arms. (Gandhi was 'testing' his vow of chastity in order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle...) Nor, frankly, did I expect to see Gandhi giving daily enemas to all the young girls in his ashrams... nor see the girls giving HIM his daily enema." (Pg. 42)
He argues, "[Nonviolence] had an absolutely tremendous moral effect when used against Britain, but not only would it not have worked against Nazi Germany... [but] it had virtually no effect whatever when Gandhi tried to bring it into play against violent Indians." (Pg. 75)
He asserts that Gandhi "was a man of the most extreme, autocratic temperament, tyrannical, unyielding even regarding things he knew nothing about, totally intolerant of all opinions but his own." (Pg. 54-55) He concludes, "Gandhi was erratic, irrational, tyrannical, obstinate. He sometimes verged on lunacy. He believed in a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant. He worshipped cows. But I still say this: he was brave. He feared no one." (Pg. 117-118)
Grenier's book is obviously going to offend admirers of Gandhi; but it is a perspective that is useful for somewhat counterbalancing the sometimes TOO hagiographic portraits of Gandhi presented elsewhere.
Richard Grenier (1926-2002) was a neoconservative cultural columnist for The Washington Times and a film critic for Commentary and The New York Times. He also wrote books such as 'Capturing the Culture: Film, Art, and Politics,' 'The Marrakesh One-Two,' etc.
This 1983 book is highly critical of the portrait presented in the movie Gandhi; he wrote in the Introduction, "So when Indians, doing their utmost to foster the new wave of pacifism in the West... converted Gandhi... into a kind of Saint Francis of Assisi, Americans swallowed it whole. At least, American film critics swallowed it whole, and Hollywood's Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seemed to swallow it whole as well..."(Pg. xxi) After quoting Gandhi on Hiroshima, he says, "One second we are promised that prayerful action will open our enemy's eyes, the next that it will guarantee us martyrdom. The reader can see why I am reluctant to accept lessons in conduct from Mr. Gandhi." (Pg. xxvii)
He points out, "when Gandhi's wife lay dying of pneumonia and British doctors insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her, Gandhi refused to have this alien medicine injected into her body and simply let her die. (It must be noted that when Gandhi contracted malaria shortly afterward he accepted for himself the alien medicine quinine, and that when he had appendicitis he allows British doctors to perform on him the alien outrage of an appendectomy." (Pg. 34)
He says sarcastically, "I cannot honestly say I had any reasonable expectation that the film would show scenes of Gandhi's pretty teenage girl followers fighting 'hysterically'... for the honor of sleeping naked with the Mahatma and cuddling the nude septuagenarian in their arms. (Gandhi was 'testing' his vow of chastity in order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle...) Nor, frankly, did I expect to see Gandhi giving daily enemas to all the young girls in his ashrams... nor see the girls giving HIM his daily enema." (Pg. 42)
He argues, "[Nonviolence] had an absolutely tremendous moral effect when used against Britain, but not only would it not have worked against Nazi Germany... [but] it had virtually no effect whatever when Gandhi tried to bring it into play against violent Indians." (Pg. 75)
He asserts that Gandhi "was a man of the most extreme, autocratic temperament, tyrannical, unyielding even regarding things he knew nothing about, totally intolerant of all opinions but his own." (Pg. 54-55) He concludes, "Gandhi was erratic, irrational, tyrannical, obstinate. He sometimes verged on lunacy. He believed in a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant. He worshipped cows. But I still say this: he was brave. He feared no one." (Pg. 117-118)
Grenier's book is obviously going to offend admirers of Gandhi; but it is a perspective that is useful for somewhat counterbalancing the sometimes TOO hagiographic portraits of Gandhi presented elsewhere.
March 10, 2017
I wish the book gave more information. I don't think Richard Grenier gives a thoroughly convincing case with the information he gives. Mr. Grenier did argue his case well that people jump on a bandwagon because it is fashionable to do so, they are emotionally caught up or because they believe one piece of information they run across (in this case the movie "Gandhi") rather than basing their beliefs on in-depth information.
May 24, 2024
I was surprised to learn that, far from how Gandhi is portrayed, he was actually a supporter of war, prone to fits of anger, a total pervert who liked to take nude naps with young girls, and was obsessed with enemas and fecal matter (among many other issues). It doesn’t surprise me in the least, though, that modern society would idolize/venerate such a man. The world lost its collective mind a long time ago.
December 26, 2020
Take with a grain of salt as it was written by a neoconservative with all the associated constant racism and a brief foray into transphobia.
That said, Gandhi should by no means be admired by anyone, especially on the left, and this article manages to hit most of the points why and is worth a (critical) read.
That said, Gandhi should by no means be admired by anyone, especially on the left, and this article manages to hit most of the points why and is worth a (critical) read.
May 26, 2009
Excellent.
Read
September 21, 2017Grenier is a journalist, who doesn't sound young, and has written only one other book – some weird history of tennis or something. But the movie Gandhi (1982) pissed him off, so he wrote this lovely little hardcover pamphlet attacking it. (It's 118 pages.)
Gandhi was a militarist, originally! He supported the Boer War, World War I… As a youth, he joined the Army and proudly fought for the British!
Though he rose to prominence in South Africa, fighting for the rights of the Indians, he didn't give a shit about black Africans!
He let his wife die because he wouldn't countenance giving her a penicillin shot. Then a few months later he took a quinine injection to cure his own malaria – plus he got an appendectomy.
He supported the caste system until he was into his 50s.
Though he stopped sleeping with his wife when he was quite young, he would give pretty young women in his ashram lots of enemas. (Was he some kind of pervert? Maybe.)
Gandhi's children hated him. One converted to Islam, became an alcoholic, died young.
And he changed his mind on pacifism (but never on his theory that the Jews should have outwitted the Nazis by committing mass suicide!). He said he was willing to sacrifice 1 million lives for the independence of India. (This was actually AFTER independence, when internecine warfare became epidemic.)
Gandhi was genuinely humble, but towards the end of his life decided he WAS a Mahatma, after all.
Grenier is clever, writes well, but his attacks on Hinduism are amateurish and scattershot. (He says they have no “personal God!” They have 6 million of ‘em!)
Gandhi was a militarist, originally! He supported the Boer War, World War I… As a youth, he joined the Army and proudly fought for the British!
Though he rose to prominence in South Africa, fighting for the rights of the Indians, he didn't give a shit about black Africans!
He let his wife die because he wouldn't countenance giving her a penicillin shot. Then a few months later he took a quinine injection to cure his own malaria – plus he got an appendectomy.
He supported the caste system until he was into his 50s.
Though he stopped sleeping with his wife when he was quite young, he would give pretty young women in his ashram lots of enemas. (Was he some kind of pervert? Maybe.)
Gandhi's children hated him. One converted to Islam, became an alcoholic, died young.
And he changed his mind on pacifism (but never on his theory that the Jews should have outwitted the Nazis by committing mass suicide!). He said he was willing to sacrifice 1 million lives for the independence of India. (This was actually AFTER independence, when internecine warfare became epidemic.)
Gandhi was genuinely humble, but towards the end of his life decided he WAS a Mahatma, after all.
Grenier is clever, writes well, but his attacks on Hinduism are amateurish and scattershot. (He says they have no “personal God!” They have 6 million of ‘em!)
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews