Skapolakious

Though it has yet to even be published in India, the Indian state of Gujarat voted to ban Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and author Joseph Lelyveld's new book, Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India.

Reviews from the the west, where the book is already available, honed in on a relationship - one some reviewers deemed "intimate" - between Gandhiji and a German friend, Hermann Kallenbach.  Though the relationship was not the focus of the novel it was the focal point of many reviews.

In India, where homosexuality was outlawed as late as 2009, the mere idea that the Father of the Nation might have been involved in a homosexual relationship caused an uproar that spawned the fatuous headline story in Tuesday's Mumbai Mirror titled "Book claims German man was Gandhi's secret love".

The end result was the preemptory ban by Gujarat's state assembly, with other Indian states threatening to follow suit.  The chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, is requesting that publication be banned nationwide.

Modi also feels that Lelyveld owes the hurt "sentiments of millions of people" an apology.  In all fairness, and in my opinion, the public apology is owed to the misaligned author.

Lelyveld, for his part, has patiently made numerous protestations against the false claim along with careful explanations of the truth; however, it all falls on deaf ears as the clamoring of the "hurt" and ignorant drowns out any sort of rationality or logic.  Lelyveld has defended his work, stating that he does not believe Gandhiji and Kallenbach had a sexual or even inappropriate relationship?  Not only that, he does not imply any such thing anywhere in the book.  He is an unfortunate victim of yellow journalism.

Though it must be frustrating, not to mention insulting, for Lelyveld, one does have to admit that, in some ways, this has worked in his favor.  They say that even bad press is good press and, indeed, it's often much better.  Regardless of the outcome and whether it ever gets published in India, Lelyveld's book has already garnered much more media attention than it would have without the dash of controversy.

The bad press + good press = awesome press formula is one of the reasons that banning books is utterly futile as a means of suppression.  Even if the book truly was filled with salacious lies claiming an indecent relationship between Gandhiji and this man, banning it would be foolishly pointless as doing so would only stoke the curiosity of a public that may have, otherwise, had no interest in the subject.

One of the more exasperating things about this entire scenario is a long-held pet peeve of mine:  the idea of banning something you have never read (or seen, or heard, so on and so forth).  The very idea is patently absurd.  Driving this point home I often remember an article I read about an irate mother who was attempting to get the Harry Potter books banned from her child's middle school library.  When asked if had ever actually read any of the books, she was indignant.  She could not seem to wrap her head around the fact that direct, personal experience will trump hearsay and ignorant conjecture any day.  Her response was something along the lines of, "I don't need to read it to know that it's evil just like I don't need to watch a pornograph­ic film to know it's dirty." Flawless logic, that.

One last thing I would like to comment on is this misunderstanding of Gandhiji and Kallenbach's friendship.  In all of the articles I have read concerning Great Soul and the controversy surrounding it, I have not seen this really addressed directly.   

The reviewers, as proof of Lelyveld's supposedly outing Gandhiji from the closet, referred to letters Mahatma had written to Kallenbach.  The poignant, and even passionate, dialogue was perplexing to many; so much so that they believed Lelyveld must be insinuating there was more between the two men than mere friendship.

The most oft-quoted as proof is this:

"How completely you have taken possession of my body.  This is slavery with a vengeance."

Despite many wonderful advances in acceptance and equality for our GLBT brothers and sisters in the last couple of decades there is still a great deal of stigma placed on homosexuals in today's world.  There is enough, obviously, that such a dialogue between two men would be circumspect, even now.  However, we know enough about Ghandiji's life to know that he was not a homosexual (indeed, he was celibate).

Regardless of how we may perceive sentiments such as the one above, the nature of he and Kallenbach's relationship was that of friendship only, and though this does not seem to sit well with many, I have yet to see another explanation offered for what some find to be a perplexing dialogue between two heterosexual, platonic male friends.

Gandhiji's deep affection for this man has nothing to do with lust or love of the kind we normally associate with human relationships.   In fact, this manner of correspondence was not limited to Hermann Kallenbach.  Psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar, who has researched and written about Gandhiji, tells us that India's beloved Father wrote to female acquaintances in the same manner.

How, then, you ask, could such seeming passion be platonic?

Personally, I feel that we should not regard this with base assumptions.  Mahatma Gandhi was not an ordinary man by any means and we do him a disservice trying to understand him through the lens of our own ideals or intolerances.

For me, this and all such correspondence from Mahatma can be viewed in the light of allegorical representation - no different than the love poems of the 13th-centu­ry Persian poet Rumi or King Solomon's "Song of Songs" in the Bible.  Love, expressed and penned in this way, is so positively pure that whether it be referring to the love one has for their creator (divine love) or the love they have for another (human love) is quite indistingu­ishable.

In this great country, we have equality for all (unless you're dark-skinned, female, and/or homosexual) and are blessed with a (rather inclusive) freedom that allows you to do things such as speak your mind (unless what you say or write happens to offend someone or people with more money and better lawyers than you disagree with your point of view) and worship the deity of your choice in whatever fashion you are moved to do so (unless you jive with a religion that Jesus didn't supposedly die for).

America, land of the free (if you happen to have been lucky enough to be a white male born into a good, Christian family).

So I'm playing Family Feud on my iPhone and the question is, "Name a pet that doesn't live very long." 

Survey says?  Housefly.

Wtf?

And this wasn't the last answer on the board, with like 2 people saying it.  No, this was Round 2, fourth answer.

Seriously?

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

So I'm reading in Popeater that Dina Lohan - over-protective, Hollywood mum to terribly-addled, near-hopeless actress Lindsay Lohan - is upset that Lindsay, during her (what will likely turn out to be all-too-brief) stay at a women's correctional facility in Lynwood, California for probation violation and charges stemming from an old DUI and drug arrest.  (You know, the kinds of things you and I would have been quickly thrown in jail for without the media claiming our sentence was "too harsh and unfair").

Dina had this to say about the deplorable conditions her daughter is being forced to suffer in:

"She doesn't have cell phone privileges, that's absurd. She doesn't even have a pillow to sleep on," Dina told Radaronline.com yesterday. "I talk to her through glass. There's a phone and we put her on speaker but I can't even hug my daughter. She's treated like a common criminal."

I would like to give Ms. Mama Lohan a little real life talking-to here; a bit of an explanation of how the world works for those of us that aren't treated as if we shit golden eggs.

Dearest Mrs. Lohan:

Lindsay is being treated like a "common criminal" because she broke the law and violated her probation.  Dina, that is actually the definition of "criminal", dear. 

It should be noted that Lindsay's extended stay is taking place at a correctional facility.  No, I don't think you quite understand - that means jail, j-a-i-l.  She is in jail not the Ritz-Carlton.  Do you honestly not realize that if she wasn't Lindsay Lohan and was just some messed-up, drugged-out young adult off the street, she'd of gotten that sentence long before now and would have served it and then some?  You decry her punishment as "unfair" and "too harsh" - so what is it when a judge orders the same (or a harsher) sentence down to a young woman who isn't a celebrity?  Would you care and advocate for them then?  Don't even bother answering that one - let's move on...

She does not have cell phone privileges because no jail in America allows cell phones to be used by inmates (need I even say why?) and, remember this because I realize you're having trouble grasping the concept, Lindsay is an inmate right now.  In a jail.  Because of her own actions and even inaction.

I would think, as a mother worried about the path her meal ticket daughter is going down, you'd be happy about this; maybe this will be a wake-up call for Lindsay to grow up and take control of her life.  Anyone ignorant and childish enough to paint "fuck you" on her fingernails before going to court - and not expecting the judge to notice and deem you, well, ignorant and childish - bespeaks of someone either not all right in the head or desperately crying out for help; perhaps and likely both. 

This time could be good for Lindsay, if she were treated like everyone else and had to actually experience the consequences of her actions (something far too few of these Hollywood starlets ever have to do).

Get used to talking to her through glass, because that is how you visit an inmate in jail, Dina.  Which - let's remind you once more - your daughter is.  And it isn't the judge who put her there, nor the lawyer that Lindsay immediately fired (and then hired someone right out of law school with no experience).  It's not even Michael Lohan's fault, though I know you and Lindsay like to blame him.  I feel he is just as much to blame for Lindsay's current state of fucked-uppedness as you are; you two were obviously terrible parents as you seemed to confuse the task of parenting with the job of managing. 

Yet that blame can only carry so far and, I personally feel, once you are in your 20's, what you do starts to be on you and not anyone else.  Ya'll may not have given her a solid foundation on which to build adulthood, but her choices are what have put her where she is now.  It's no one's fault but Lindsay's that she is in jail.

That you think she should get "special privileges" while there speaks volumes; especially considering the fact that she is getting special treatment in that jail - she is not in population, her family doesn't have to wait in lines just to see her as everyone else does, and the guards give her candy when she asks for it.  I'm sure there's much more in the way of special privileges that Lindsay alone is favored with, but those are a few choice tidbits we've been privy to thanks to the media. 

The problem here is that Lindsay isn't being treated like a "common criminal" and she should be.  Firstly, because she is a criminal, she did break the law, and she should be subject to the same laws and punishments the rest of us are.  Secondly, how is she going to learn to accept responsibility for her own fuckups if everyone keeps giving her a free pass?

I hope, for the sake of your daughter's sanity and, quite possibly, life that you take heed to what I know some people close to you must be saying.  Ignore the sycophants and stop being one yourself wherein your child is concerned.  Do what is best for her, not what will bring in more money for all of you.  The extent to which Lindsay has been used by you and Michael is deplorable.  I have no doubt you love your child, but I believe deep down you know it is a selfish love rather than a selfless one, as it should be.  Perhaps if those around her tried to truly help and listen to her rather than pander to her childish whims, I think she would respond.  She is screaming out for guidance and discipline in her life; help her to establish that - even if it means a few years away from the media circus, the limelight, and the entire Hollywood scene.  For once, do what is best for Lindsay and not those that rely on her for a paycheck.

Sincerely,

Shanna Riley
aka skatoolaki

I honestly started out to write this with some snark and bite and a few laughs, but - in the end - found myself actually imploring Dina Lohan to wake up and realize that her daughter is on a fast-moving, one-way trip straight to an early grave.  I found I couldn't poke fun at Lindsay because, as much as I dislike her, she's obviously very ill - mentally and emotionally she is damaged and the self-medicating with drugs and alcohol is only making it worse.  Her parents are constantly in the media, calling it on themselves, and pulling Lindsay between them like a rag doll; she's a meal ticket to them and not a daughter and that's just...sad.  I see Lindsay as this broken, desperate little girl just crying out for someone to love her and take care of her. 

No, in the end, I could not poke too much fun because, all around, this is just a sad situation and if something doesn't change - if there is no wake-up call for Lindsay soon - the news we write about her will only continue to be more tragic.

Reading Andrew Breitbart's original (and now infamous) post on Big Government introducing his video "proof" that Shirley Sherrod and - by extension somehow - the whole of the current administration were racist, I had to pause for a moment and consider Breitbart's rather interesting, to my mind, at least, choice of words:

"...to exploit this nation’s sensitive racial schism…"

Is it just me, or does anyone else find that "sensitive racial schism" is a rather ominously, anally-sexual sounding bit of wordplay?