Tushar Gandi – What’s your problem with fluid sexuality?
Grow up Tushar!
There may or may not be claims of bisexuality in the book …
There are certainly some claims which could be interpreted in that way and if the author lives in western culture (which they do). I would consider it, at best, naive to write in a way in which they would have know that such an interpretation would be likely to be made.
In any regard, I fail to see the blasphemy – Gandhi was not a God
It’s worth noting though that Gandhi was a British-trained lawyer and writing in English (I think) within the social context of a British colony, and even though the word ‘love’ was frequently used a century ago in a non-sexual way among men – specially among Theosophist types – if these letters are genuine they do suggest an interesting facet to his character.
I think Gandi would laugh if he read this. Why does it matter? Only to bigots.
Its not right to speculate about someone’s personal life after they are dead without definitive proof.
Let the poor man rest in peace.
Who the hell cares what his sexuality was anyway, it did not define what the world thinks of him.
He’s hardly likely to not ‘rest in peace’ because some letters, possibly love letters (according to definition), have come to light.
Considering the tedious regularity with which people protest at the idea of historical public figures being anything other than conventionally heterosexual, as though the possibility of anything else is shameful, I think there’s nothing wrong with making a possibly less narrow focus known.
I don’t think we need to go around giving historical figures a sexuality retrospectively, it achieves very little.
That’s probably what people in the 19c said about Frederick the Great of Prussia and many many others.
However, I do think knowing about aspects of a historical figure’s sexuality and/or emotional attachments can be of great interest in helping to understand them and their motivations.
I agree it can be interesting both in hlping understand the context of people and sexuality and its development. It can also be sheer noseyness.
I do think what is also interesting is that the author of the biography writes in the manner he does then denies he intended suggesting Gandhi may have been bisexual. I may be cynical but I suspect either he was uncomfortable with the notion of bisexuality or he wanted to make money out of the was he/wasnt he debate ….
I suspect the author is just being careful and politic. He probably doesn’t want to run the risk of death threats and so on by using the B-word itself!
I agree Helen there is something distasteful about it when the person in question cannot respond in person.
Then again some of these people need to learn that Some people are Bisexual to and need to get over it.
Interesting that Tushar Ghandi felt it necessary to refute claims of his great grandfathers love, albeit for another man, yet didn’t feel a need to comment on the racism thing. What does this say about Tushar Ghandi. To me, certainly a lot more than the whole book said about his great grandfather.
Very interesting observation
Also still dont understand how (whether they are right or wrong or indeed if they are interpreted right or wrong) the claims in the blasphemous
To claim that what’s said is in any way blasphemous is truly ridiculous.
Way to sell the book! You can’t buy this sort of PR…
…haven’t been so shocked since Dumbledore!
Who cares Jesus its ambigious, open to interprtation…gee biscuits…
Oh thats right because homosexuality is only a thing of the west…. Yeah right!
There’s not of them gays there. What a ridiculous claim. So what if he was bisexual, here’s another shock… He was also a human being!!
As for blasphemy.. well it gave me a good laugh, at least thats something.
Trust you me, if its known and proven that Gandhi was black, Jew, a fag and one legged, he would still be a well loved and adored figure!
@Denis Nzioka You may not think so’, but your comment is Racist, Anti Semitic, Homophobic and Disabled Prejudiced all in on fell swoop. Have a read through it again and perhaps think about rewording it……
… one** obv
Okay, well, since there’s nothing wrong, bad, negative or insulting about being bi (or gay or straight or asexual…) then saying or suggesting that someone may have been bi is not a negative or desparaging thing. It’s just information, biography…
It is interesting that many seem to equate both the ‘allegations’ of bisexuality and racism as if they are equally ‘bad’ things to say about someone and a reputation needs defending against them both equally.
Also, his supporters don’t seem to want to ‘defend’ his name from the idea he left his wife (abandonment? adultury?) for someone…. actions that many would think were callous and selfish. It appears to be okay if the world thinks he was a cad, so long as no one dares think he may have loved a man in the process of being a cad.
Watching others try to make a virtue out of their bigotry is always confusing.
Totally confusing watching others try to justify their bigotry
Of course there is nothing wrong in being bi
Of course there are other things the Gandhi is well documented as having been involved in that are questionable
None of it stops him having been a prolific leader
I actually find the vein attempts at defending issues such as bisexuality (which need no defending) more offensive than any of the “allegations”
What I dont get is that there is nothing in hindu holy scripture that says homosexuality is wrong. Hinduism and Shinto are the probably the two most gay friendly religions there are.
Yes, that is what I understand about those two faiths as well. But that has never stopped people who hold bigoted or biased ideas from trying to impose them on a religion retroactively and then using the ‘power’ of that religion over people. Pathetic really.
I wish they would change the word ‘religion’ to those that are totally accepting of all around them. The word religion is tainted and maybe it the main problem with how others look at them.
Gandhi was the brains (upper house), slight of build and never a looker even in his youth whereas Herman Kallenbach, the brawn (lower house), had a body builders physicality and was an attractive man. You can see how they complemented each other and why they adored each other.
Considering the previous it would be more strange if they didn’t have a sexual relationship during the two years when they were sharing a house together after Gandhi had left the wife he despised for Kallenbach.
Certainly they loved each other.
If Ghandi were indeed bisexual, it would have been a huge scandal for his great grandson to affirm it. Indian culture is pretty strict on such things, and there are many known, but looked on with disdain, cases of men in Indian culture – particularly in the higher castes – who have left their wives for a love affair with another man. It would not be unusual, just one of those things that would never be talked about in polite company.
All the more reason to discuss it in impolite society, then!
Yes Rehan, to quote the lovely Mel & Kim…
We ain’t never gonna be respectable.
Showing your age Pavlos
Heh. Mind you, Pavlos, that Stephen Fry fella is doing pretty well in the cuddly/respectable stakes these days.
Seriously though, it’s easy to forget how open discussion can be taken for granted here in the UK while elsewhere certain subjects still remain taboo or, at best, only worthy of a sort of sn1gg3ring prurience. [And if you're wondering, I had to write it that way because of its resemblance to a banned word.]
Dear PN Readers .We have now put an FB page for EndTheFear as a new LGBT rights movement.Please check it out and like,as well as share.Our videos are now there,thank you for your support so far.