Apr 022011

Remember Chris Rock saying we know the world is crazy when the best rapper in the world is white, the best golfer is black and the tallest man in the NBA is Chinese?  Well, not even Chris Rock could make up a story about Gandhi being a bisexual racist.

I knew that the Mahatma had always used his position to inveigle women into his humble bed.  Isn’t that what rock stars do?  But  somehow it never occurred to me that the Great Soul might also be engaging in a spot of hochmagandy with a German bodybuilder, Hermann Kallenbach.

Gandhi and Kallenbach

You think I jest?

Oh goodness gracious me, no.  I’m afraid the man was carnally cavorting with the German gentleman, as confirmed by Joseph Lelyveld in his book, Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India.  He even left his wife Kasturba in 1908 to be with Hermann.  And for fear you might think Lelyveld is some sort of grubby tabloid hack, let me assure you that he holds a Pulitzer Prize and is a former editor of the New York Times.  A man you do not dismiss lightly, unless you happen to be the Gujarat government.

They banned it.

But apart from Gandhi’s nocturnal pursuits, there’s also the matter of how he regarded black Africans.

We were marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs, he wrote. We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized.

I see.  So Gandhi was aracist, eh? Next thing they’ll be telling us Mother Teresa was a cynical, grasping old fraud.

Oh wait.

That’s the problem with creating living saints, isn’t it?



  34 Responses to “Racist Gandhi Had Homosexual Relationship With German Bodybuilder Shock!”

Comments (34)

    I’ve heard that Chuck Norris,likes a Shandy..

    He is a Shandy drinker..


    Lets look at things in context shall we, Mahatma Gandhi slept with a man and for that he shall be slandered?? The first civil partnerships gets recognised this week by Irish law, where persons of same sex relations get to be treated almost as 80% normal by the Irish State! And here we are having a go at a man who happened to have had a same sex relationship in the early part of the 20th Century, how freakin difficult must that have been then! And leaving his wife for him! I don’t know many people around who have NEVER dumped someone for somebody else!
    Then the comments about being treated as a “kaffir”, extremely disturbing yes, but so was South Africa until the 1990’s! Gandhi was a resident of South Africa back in the start of the 1900’s and society during the apartheid meant that each skin tone was a step up from the next, being dark meant you were the lowest class/caste as in the Indian structure of caste’s. I am not condoning racism but tell me this, are we not also capable in this society of referring to a certain people of the traveling community as being uncivilised too?


    Jacki — Where do you see the slander in this post?


    You know only minutes after I hit comment I remembered how well read you are on slander and thought “feck” I wish I hadn’t said that first bit, and that I should reread in future before I hit the button. My apologies, I take that part back.


    You might have mixed slander up with Shandy, Jackie..Chuck Norris’s favourite drink..


    That headline reads like a ” Red top ” rag.


    Bock, nobody is really good. we are too complex to become saints.


    Yes, shandy and slander, that’s it, I must be slurring my words, so early! And I agree Norma, I think that’s what got my back up!


    Norma — Indeed it does, and that’s because it’;s supposed to. Yet, there isn’t a single word of criticism about Gandhi’s sexual orientation in the thing, because that’s not the point of the post. Does anyone really think, after all these years, that I give one single fiddler’s fuck whether someone is gay or straight?


    Bock. No I don’t think you give a fiddlers fuck and I made no comment on the content, Just thought the headline was sensationalist and outside of your usual direct, hard hitting or just plain to the point style, If I saw that headline elsewhere, I wouldn’t look further.
    Wouldn’t make any difference to my views what sexual preferences Ghandi or anyone else has, The racist content could have been taken out of context or could have reflected racist views, I would veer toward the view of CO’R in that we are complex and it just isn’t possible to be and live within the confines of others concepts of who we are.


    I think that going any further would be the web equivalent of people saying “Do you get it?” so I’ll just leave it there.


    He wasn’t a pacifist either.


    Indian society is full of contradictions, before his arrival in SA, Ghandi as a high caste hindu would have looked on Black Africans as being akin to untouchables, his enlightenment only came about because of his treatment at the hands of the white regime in SA. Satyagraha and his later outlook on untouchability only formed after he witnessed and was himself the victim of the treatment of Asians in SA. So what if he was Bisexual, his teachings still stand the test of time and have become a model for many movements around the world opposed to oppression. It still does not change my view of him, but do you not think it strange that Jesus spent most of his time with 13 men and never married.


    I think the real story here is not Gandhi’s sexual orientation but the reaction of the state and central governments.


    What do you call an Indian cloak room attendant? Mahatma Coat.

    Boom Boom.


    Sorry to say this, but I could see how what you said could be slander.

    You said that he “used his position to inveigle women into his humble bed”, and then compared what happens there to what rock stars do there. First of all, inveigle means:

    To win over by coaxing, flattery, or artful talk. (freedictionary)

    to lead on with deception; entice or trick into doing or giving something, going somewhere, etc. (yourdictionary)

    to convert, convince or win over with flattery or wiles; to obtain through guile or cunning. (wiktionary)

    to acquire by ingenuity or flattery (Miriam-Webster)

    Not all negative connotations, but a lot of it. But then when you compare what went on in Gandhi’s bed with a rock star’s, the negativity increases – get her in there for sex.

    I didn’t read the book you mentioned, but I read this review of another book about Gandhi’s sexual “pursuits”:


    where it says that

    he worked out a series of complex rules which meant he could say he was chaste while still engaging in the most explicit sexual conversation, letters and behaviour.

    He seemed, at least from this article, to be testing his ability to refrain from being aroused. Although the article does at least twice imply that he had sex with his naked bed companions, I don’t see any evidence of that presented. If he didn’t, then then that – and what you said also – would therefore be close to if not actual slander. This is regardless of his homosexual activities, if he did in fact “go all the way” with them – because he might not have considered that to be in the same arrousal category as laying with (although apparently not “laying”) beautiful, young women.

    But if there is evidence in the book to the contrary (i.e. real “laying”), then I appologize and retract.

    But his wife’s name Kasturba – sounds a lot like a combination of Caste, Chaste, and Masturbation (in English, anyway). Interesting coincidence…


    Sounds like Gandhi was a gay racist homophobe.
    But sure no one’s perfect.
    I’m no saint meself.

    “He seemed, at least from this article, to be testing his ability to refrain from being aroused.” Ah yeah, that’s what every man or woman is up to when they watch porn. Testing their ability to refrain from being aroused. Makes sense.


    Down god damn it, down.


    I don’t think that he would have downed it quite that way. Or at all, from what I know about tantric yoga, which he may have been practicing in a chaste form. Although instructing his married ashram couples to refrain like him seems a little too extreme to me.

    And why do you call it watching porn? If you had read the article, you would know that he wasn’t even looking, at least in some instances. And if he was, all he saw was a naked woman, probably not doing any porny kind of stuff. More like a nude posing for a fine art painting. But you’re sensationalizing it, just like Bock did. Maybe you’re both right, but you shouldn’t assume so. That’s where things become slanderous – when you make unfounded claims based on how you imagine things happened. Not saying that you can’t be slanderous if you want to – but just realize that that may be what it is.


    How does one slander a deceased person?


    Ahem, Bock by putting such a title as you have to this post you have let yourself down badly, calling to question your view. I do indeed realise that in actual fact you were drawing attention to the actual banning of a book criticising Gandhi by the governers of the region where he comes from and where he is memory is used to idolise him.

    Your headline drew a different view from the actual content of your post. Where you trying to be controversel? Did you really care about the reaction you would cause? I mean in todays outward looking way, we don`t really care about anybodys sexual orientation.

    You are usually so exact, so to the point, i have been a very active reader of so many of you posts here over the last few years. I find so much i would agree with in total. I don`t feel let down, i have made many mistakes over the years myself. I do feel a sense of loss however. Are you just seeking to …….. oh i don`t know, start a fight just for the sake of it?

    There are such telling reasons for his words and actions put up here by people who would have a better understanding of Gandhi then I. Do you realise the damage you have caused to yourself by that headline at all?


    I recommend that you have a nice cup of tea and get over it.


    Let’s not be TOO hard on ol’ Bock, now. He likes a good argument, and looks for a good argument. And maybe sometimes, not so good. Like you said, we all make mistakes! ; ) But I don’t think that the headline damaged his rep so much, a rep that is admittedly offensive (20% more, BTW). It wasn’t the homo headline anyway that was the biggest problem – it was the stuff inside about women, I thought.

    And about slander – well, slandering a dead person affects their family, and if they were an important political figure, then it affects their constituency and city/nation. And that’s exactly what his contemporary and the current politicos are trying to guard against. If he really did bad stuff, then let it be known – and chalk it up again to everyone making mistakes. But don’t make it worse than it really was.


    Some 1, thank you for reminding me, i had entirely forgotten about the extra 20%. I am learning everyday.


    Aren’t we all (hopefully!).


    @15 Indian cloakroom attendant. What do you call a pacifist Gaelic-speaking Aran Islander wearing a knitted jumper?
    – A Mahatma Gansey.

    Boom Boom on the bodhran.

    And what is the definition of a Mahatma Pansy? Don’t even think of it…the pc crowd will try to shut you down.


    It seems that for whatever reason, by your tone in this blog post you consider homosexuality/bisexuality as morally abhorrent as racism, correct? Why so?


    It seems from the tone of your comment that you believe you can read minds. Why so?


    Would the answer be psychic abilities?


    It does SEEM that way, Bock. No need to read minds – the tone is in the post. But I think that your point is the “shock” of it – as per the post title – not any moral abhorrence. Even though, as has been pointed out, so what if he was bi? It’s just that we didn’t know, and it just seems unusual for someone in his (political) position, that’s all.

    This deserves a limerick (BTW, his name rhymes with blondie, not candy!):

    There once was a leader named Gandhi
    Of man he was sexually fondy
    Now this bothered Bock
    Put him into shock
    But abhorrence it don’t correspondi

    Some people say that this is slander
    But it’s just Bock’s usual candor
    But what gets him raw though
    Is the government’s law – no?
    replacing truth with propagander

    And just so that it not be thought that we think bad of him:

    Still, the world calls him Mahatma Gandhi. His name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was a man of noble qualities. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on 2nd October – 1869, at Porbandar in The Gujarat State of India. He went to South Africa as a lawyer. He united the Indian there. He fought successfully against the unjust rule of the white rulers there. Then he came back to India. He became the leader for struggle for our independence. He started a struggle against the foreign Government. He taught us not to hate anyone but to love everyone. He freed us from the British Rule. Gandhi loved the people of India. And the people of India also loved very much. Mahatma Gandhi is called The father of our nation.



    It might seem that way to some people, but that’s their choice.


    Off topic: What’s the story again with this avatar that you use? Who is it, and from what movie? Does he know that you’re honoring him thusly? I think that he would be amused and impressed.


    It’s Klaus Kinski in Fitzcarraldo. I reckon he’s unaware of it, since he’s dead.


    For 20 years already. What a guy he was! Besides appearing in “over 130 films” (!):

    Kinski reinforced his image as a wild-eyed, sex-crazed maniac in the autobiography, All I Need Is Love. The book infuriated many, and prompted his daughter Nastassja to file a libel suit against him, which was soon withdrawn.[16] Werner Herzog, in his retrospective film on Kinski, My Best Fiend (1999), would later say that much of the autobiography was fabricated to generate sales.


    And I see that he played an Irishman – that also why you picked him (besides obviously the 20% more offensive facial expression)?

    A rather interesting movie also:

    Casting of the film was also quite difficult. Jason Robards was originally cast in the title role, but he became ill with dysentery during early filming and, after leaving for treatment, was forbidden by his doctors to return. Herzog then considered casting Jack Nicholson, and even playing Fitzcarraldo himself, before Klaus Kinski accepted the role. By that point, forty percent of shooting with Robards was complete, and for continuity Herzog was forced to begin a total reshoot with Kinski. Mick Jagger was originally cast as Fitzcarraldo’s assistant Wilbur, but due to the delays his shooting schedule expired and he departed to tour with the Rolling Stones. Herzog, out of respect, dropped Jagger’s character from the script altogether and reshot the film from the beginning.

    Klaus Kinski himself was a major source of tension, as he fought virulently with Herzog and other members of the crew; a scene from the documentary My Best Fiend depicts Kinski raging at production manager Walter Saxer over trivial matters, such as the quality of the food … Herzog states he found that waiting for Kinski to burn himself out was easier than arguing with him. In My Best Fiend, Herzog says that one of the native chiefs offered, in all seriousness, to murder Kinski for him, but that he declined because he needed Kinski to complete filming.


    So much to do in this life, and so little time…

Leave a Reply