A great debate is bouncing between India, Britain and the United States and not only scholars and intellectuals, but ordinary people, from the poorest to the richest, from guru to the merchant, the pundits illiteracy, and all religions. It seems that Gandhi had a lover, the architect and builder body jew German Hermann Kallenbach (1871-1945), who was his friend since he was the Mahatma in South Africa.
It also seems that the Mahatma did not bear the South African blacks. The review said a journalist from the Daily Mail on the book by another journalist, Joseph Pulitzer Lelyveld "Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India." The article in the Daily Mail is entitled to effect: 'Gandhi' left his wife to live with a male lover, 'says a new book.
" Of course, everyone in India who consider Mahatma one of the fathers of their country, they feel outraged. And a little 'I'm also outraged me - apart from the love I have for Gandhi and the joy they gave me his books - especially because it seems that in this book Lelyveld's not there.
It 'been denied by the author himself. In the Indian state of Gujarat last week the book was banned and the government is considering a law to make it an offense punishable by imprisonment for any insult or disrespect to Gandhi, like those who offend the constitution or the national flag.
Now, aside from that Lelyveld said repeatedly that he never said that the Mahatma had a lover and that everything is still based on the original correspondence filed by Kallenbach and descendants, the question I think opens the debate on many issues important not only for the historical or intellectual discourse, but for civil rights.
First, it is right to index a book, as is abusive? Because I think it is insulting to the review, which makes the text say things that are not there, not the book itself. The text is based on documents, so it's history. We have to index the story, as has been done for years in Italy with many great intellectuals of fascism (still valid, I do not speak no pushovers that trumpeted the regime)? Also, where you can push the interpretation of historical documents? Because the documents themselves do not speak, you have to talk.
The letters show that Gandhi lived with the architect for four years and had a loving relationship with him. This means that we also went to bed? And this is how it feels? Third and finally, no less important: the extent to which journalism can be done by making a spectacular news, but then, in essence, changing? Then falsely? The review process is obviously an exaggeration, distortion, although it has attracted the attention of half the world on the book by Lelyveld (oh my God, that does not need it, but anyway ..).
The "truth" however, is not only done but is also a question of how it reports the fact, as you say things, if you exaggerate, if you try to be balanced in presenting the story, cutting the event, the light that illuminates the words used and so on. And especially if you do speak the silences, the absences.
(And here, the truth of journalism, we should speak of many Italian newspapers - but it's still better than me). 
It also seems that the Mahatma did not bear the South African blacks. The review said a journalist from the Daily Mail on the book by another journalist, Joseph Pulitzer Lelyveld "Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India." The article in the Daily Mail is entitled to effect: 'Gandhi' left his wife to live with a male lover, 'says a new book.
" Of course, everyone in India who consider Mahatma one of the fathers of their country, they feel outraged. And a little 'I'm also outraged me - apart from the love I have for Gandhi and the joy they gave me his books - especially because it seems that in this book Lelyveld's not there.
It 'been denied by the author himself. In the Indian state of Gujarat last week the book was banned and the government is considering a law to make it an offense punishable by imprisonment for any insult or disrespect to Gandhi, like those who offend the constitution or the national flag.
Now, aside from that Lelyveld said repeatedly that he never said that the Mahatma had a lover and that everything is still based on the original correspondence filed by Kallenbach and descendants, the question I think opens the debate on many issues important not only for the historical or intellectual discourse, but for civil rights.
First, it is right to index a book, as is abusive? Because I think it is insulting to the review, which makes the text say things that are not there, not the book itself. The text is based on documents, so it's history. We have to index the story, as has been done for years in Italy with many great intellectuals of fascism (still valid, I do not speak no pushovers that trumpeted the regime)? Also, where you can push the interpretation of historical documents? Because the documents themselves do not speak, you have to talk.
The letters show that Gandhi lived with the architect for four years and had a loving relationship with him. This means that we also went to bed? And this is how it feels? Third and finally, no less important: the extent to which journalism can be done by making a spectacular news, but then, in essence, changing? Then falsely? The review process is obviously an exaggeration, distortion, although it has attracted the attention of half the world on the book by Lelyveld (oh my God, that does not need it, but anyway ..).
The "truth" however, is not only done but is also a question of how it reports the fact, as you say things, if you exaggerate, if you try to be balanced in presenting the story, cutting the event, the light that illuminates the words used and so on. And especially if you do speak the silences, the absences.
(And here, the truth of journalism, we should speak of many Italian newspapers - but it's still better than me).
No comments:
Post a Comment