Gandhi

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am writing in reference to Errol Louis' "expose" on Gandhi. I cannot help admiring Mr. Louis good intentions in spreading the truth about Gandhi but some of the points he makes need to be commented upon. No one denies that the movie glosses over Gandhi's life, least of all the Indians, but his implication that the movie is simply a piece of political propaganda by the Indian Government is ludicrous as is the notion of Richard Attenborough being an Indian "agent" hired to defame Jinnah. The partial funding of the film by the government was a profitable financial investment and nothing else. The unfavorable portrayal of Jinnah is a consequence of the director's own views and not a result of political pressure by the Indian government. Attenborough is an ardent admirer of Gandhi and therefore his criticism of Jinnah is hardly surprising even though it may not be entirely objective.

Louis' criticisms about Gandhi's views on non-violence serve to reinforce one's faith in Gandhi. To remain true to the principles of non-violence even in the face of possible annihilation requires real courage. Hitler's attack on Europe provided a testing ground for these principles and Gandhi stood by them. Far from being despicable, this attitude is admirable if only for its total honesty. As for Louis' penetrating insights into Gandhi's experiments with abstinence, anyone who has the least bit of interest in Gandhi's life will not be surprised by them. They are common knowledge to people who don't believe in getting all their education from Hollywood films. Superficial Gandhi admirers will be disheartened by the revelations in the article and may lose their initial "optimistic enthusiasm" but the real Gandhi admirers will, I hope, persevere. Hemen Shah '85