{"id":43000,"date":"2018-09-27T01:00:56","date_gmt":"2018-09-27T05:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=43000"},"modified":"2018-09-07T09:52:15","modified_gmt":"2018-09-07T13:52:15","slug":"qotd-gandhis-views-on-britain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2018\/09\/27\/qotd-gandhis-views-on-britain\/","title":{"rendered":"QotD: Gandhi’s views on Britain"},"content":{"rendered":"

… as almost always with historical films, even those more honest than Gandhi<\/em>, the historical personage on which the movie is based is not only more complex but more interesting than the character shown on the screen. During his entire South African period, and for some time after, until he was about fifty, Gandhi was nothing more or less than an imperial loyalist, claiming for Indians the rights of Englishmen but unshakably loyal to the crown. He supported the empire ardently in no fewer than three wars: the Boer War, the \u201cKaffir War,\u201d and, with the most extreme zeal, World War I. If Gandhi\u2019s mind were of the modern European sort, this would seem to suggest that his later attitude toward Britain was the product of unrequited love: he had wanted to be an Englishman; Britain had rejected him and his people; very well then, they would have their own country. But this would imply a point of \u201cagonizing reappraisal,\u201d a moment when Gandhi\u2019s most fundamental political beliefs were reexamined and, after the most bitter soul-searching, repudiated. But I have studied the literature and cannot find this moment of bitter soul-searching. Instead, listening to his \u201cinner voice\u201d (which in the case of divines of all countries often speaks in the tones of holy opportunism), Gandhi simply, tranquilly, without announcing any sharp break, set off in a new direction.<\/p>\n

It should be understood that it is unlikely Gandhi ever truly conceived of \u201cbecoming\u201d an Englishman, first, because he was a Hindu to the marrow of his bones, and also, perhaps, because his democratic instincts were really quite weak. He 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. He was, furthermore, in the highest degree reactionary, permitting in India no change in the relationship between the feudal lord and his peasants or servants, the rich and the poor. In his The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi<\/em>, the best and least hagiographic of the full-length studies, Robert Payne, although admiring Gandhi greatly, explains Gandhi\u2019s \u201cnew direction\u201d on his return to India from South Africa as follows:<\/p>\n