Gandhi Was In Love with a German Body Builder Named Hermann

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Mar 27, 2011 1:24 AM GMT
    Mahatma Gandhi Was In Love with a German Body Builder Named Hermann

    [url]http://gawker.com/#!5786017/mahatma-gandhi-was-in-love-with-a-male-body-builder[/url]


    [quote]
    Gandhi's organ probably only rarely became aroused with his naked young ladies, because the love of his life was a German-Jewish architect and bodybuilder, Hermann Kallenbach, for whom Gandhi left his wife in 1908. "Your portrait (the only one) stands on my mantelpiece in my bedroom," he wrote to Kallenbach. "The mantelpiece is opposite to the bed." For some reason, cotton wool and Vaseline were "a constant reminder" of Kallenbach, which Mr. Lelyveld believes might relate to the enemas Gandhi gave himself, although there could be other, less generous, explanations.

    Gandhi wrote to Kallenbach about "how completely you have taken possession of my body. This is slavery with a vengeance." Gandhi nicknamed himself "Upper House" and Kallenbach "Lower House," and he made Lower House promise not to "look lustfully upon any woman." The two then pledged "more love, and yet more love . . . such love as they hope the world has not yet seen."
    [/quote]

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160371482469358.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 2:22 AM GMT
    The wiki entry on Hermann Kallenbach is fascinating and like Metta8's links also demonstrates how Gandhi's public statements didn't match his private political sentiments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kallenbach I guess their relationship might explain why Gandhi wouldn't allow his wife, who was dying from bronchial pneumonia, to take penicillin to save her life yet six weeks later when he contracted malaria he took it: http://yabanip.blogspot.com/2006/02/gandhi-refused-to-let-his-dying-wife.html Like Mother Teresa, he was not infallible...but who is?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 2:30 AM GMT
    I'm skeptical
  • 24hourguy

    Posts: 364

    Mar 28, 2011 3:17 AM GMT
    And?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 3:32 AM GMT
    24hourguy saidAnd?


    It means Ghandi was a total RJ'er. I hope he buddy lists me back icon_redface.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 3:46 AM GMT
    rug12ds saidI'm skeptical


    this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 3:49 AM GMT
    Imagine how interesting the movie would have been with THIS storyline!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 4:17 AM GMT
    One thing we do know for sure, is that he treated his wife poorly, and if that was because he also wanted to be with a man, it's inexcusable. Yes he had a right to love, but he deprived another of it, if this is true.

    But one can relate to his Public statements not matching his private political sentiment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 4:51 AM GMT
    I enjoyed reading that because I've never been a fan.
    I'd like to see how this book is received in India.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 6:05 AM GMT
    so Ghandi was gay after all....ummkay
  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Mar 28, 2011 6:29 AM GMT
    Was Gandhi Gay?

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/26/was-gandhi-gay/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 6:56 AM GMT
    itsivan saidso Ghandi was gay after all....ummkay


    No! But......maybe bisexual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 7:21 AM GMT
    eagermuscle said Like Mother Teresa, he was not infallible...but who is?


    In fact, for many in India, he is downright hated!!!
  • ATLANTIS7

    Posts: 1213

    Mar 28, 2011 7:33 AM GMT
    And the Pope is a Transexual?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 7:36 AM GMT
    BodrumBoy saidAnd the Pope is a Transexual?


    Girl rocks one fierce diva hat
    050806_PopeBenedict_vl.widec.jpg

    Werk it Benny! You smize with those fierce infallible catholic eyes! ooo child!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 7:36 AM GMT
    Herman was a sexy guy.........icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 8:59 AM GMT
    I've always been suspicious of people who get canonized by "the public" like Gandhi and Mother Theresa.

    They get turned into an idealized portrait of some kind of saint; then sooner or later stuff about the real person surfaces and it turns out it's impolite to shatter the idealized image people like to have of them. Ugh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 9:01 AM GMT
    BodrumBoy saidAnd the Pope is a Transexual?


    Well he does wear a long dress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 9:56 AM GMT
    That doesn't come as a surprise to me! I mean for a guy who slept with naked young women in order to demonstrate the world his "control" over his libidos, it is very much possible that he was a Perv(gay or bi doesn't even suit to describe him). Anyways its like someone said that he's downright hated here, ya he is(even by me). And Talk about a country which has given Kamasutra and concepts like Ardhanari to the world! Jeesh I hate to say but many of my country's forefathers were such hypocrites!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 10:15 AM GMT
    I can't blame him... wouldn't we all want a german bodybuilder named Hermann? icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 10:39 AM GMT
    Aranayaka21 saidThat doesn't come as a surprise to me! I mean for a guy who slept with naked young women in order to demonstrate the world his "control" over his libidos, it is very much possible that he was a Perv(gay or bi doesn't even suit to describe him). Anyways its like someone said that he's downright hated here, ya he is(even by me). And Talk about a country which has given Kamasutra and concepts like Ardhanari to the world! Jeesh I hate to say but many of my country's forefathers were such hypocrites!


    WoW.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2011 1:03 PM GMT
    metta8 saidMahatma Gandhi Was In Love with a German Body Builder Named Hermann


    ...and the price of eggs in China reached an all time high.....



    SFW?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 2:02 PM GMT
    And now the guy who published this in his book, Joseph Lelyveld, is dismissing the fact that he allegedly wrote these things:

    From www.news24.com (2011-03-29 14:35)

    New Delhi - An American author on Tuesday angrily dismissed claims his new book on Mahatma Gandhi alleged that India's independence leader was a racist bisexual who left his wife for a bodybuilder.

    Indian newspapers were outraged by reviews in the United States and Britain of Joseph Lelyveld's biography that focused on Gandhi's relationship with German-Jewish architect and amateur bodybuilder Hermann Kallenbach.

    Gandhi lived with Kallenbach in Johannesburg for about two years from 1907 before leaving South Africa to return to India in 1914.

    "How completely you have taken possession of my body," Gandhi was quoted as saying in a letter to Kallenbach. "This is slavery with a vengeance."

    The British Daily Mail ran the headline "Gandhi 'left his wife to live with a male lover' new book claims", while the Daily Telegraph review said he had "held racist views against South African blacks".

    ‘No suggestion of racism’

    But Lelyveld, a former executive editor of the New York Times, said Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India had been grossly distorted by the press coverage.

    "I do not allege that Gandhi is racist or bisexual," he said in a statement. "The word 'bisexual' nowhere appears in the book."

    "The word 'racist' is used once to characterise comments by Gandhi early in his stay in South Africa... the chapter in no way concludes that he was a racist or offers any suggestion of it."

    The Wall Street Journal said Lelyveld's book suggested Gandhi - who is revered as the father of independent India and an icon of non-violence protest - was "a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist."

    "Mr Lelyveld makes abundantly clear... the love of his life was a German-Jewish architect and bodybuilder, Hermann Kallenbach," the Journal review said.

    ‘Morbid fascination with Gandhi’s sexuality’

    It quoted a letter Gandhi wrote to Kallenbach saying "your portrait (the only one) stands on my mantelpiece in my bedroom".

    Gandhi's relatives in India, where the book has not yet been released, attacked the accusations about Gandhi's love life.

    "These western writers have a morbid fascination for Gandhi's sexuality," his great-grandson Tushar Gandhi told the Delhi-based Mail Today.

    "It only helps them sell their books. It is always open season with Gandhi."

    The book will go on sale in the United States on Tuesday.



    - AFP




    Funny thing is, the following was in a review of his book:

    By ANDREW ROBERTS

    Joseph Lelyveld has written a ­generally admiring book about ­Mohandas Gandhi, the man credited with leading India to independence from Britain in 1947. Yet "Great Soul" also obligingly gives readers more than enough information to discern that he was a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist—one who was often downright cruel to those around him. Gandhi was therefore the archetypal 20th-century progressive ­intellectual, professing his love for mankind as a concept while actually ­despising people as individuals.

    For all his lifelong campaign for Swaraj ("self-rule"), India could have achieved it many years earlier if ­Gandhi had not continually abandoned his civil-disobedience campaigns just as they were beginning to be successful. With 300 million Indians ruled over by 0.1% of that number of Britons, the subcontinent could have ended the Raj with barely a shrug if it had been politically united. Yet Gandhi's uncanny ability to irritate and frustrate the leader of India's 90 million Muslims, Muhammad Ali Jinnah (whom he called "a maniac"), wrecked any hope of early independence. He equally alienated B.R. Ambedkar, who spoke for the country's 55 million Untouchables (the lowest caste of Hindus, whose very touch was thought to defile the four higher classes). Ambedkar pronounced Gandhi "devious and untrustworthy." Between 1900 and 1922, Gandhi ­suspended his efforts no fewer than three times, leaving in the lurch more than 15,000 supporters who had gone to jail for the cause.

    A ceaseless self-promoter, Gandhi bought up the entire first edition of his first, hagiographical biography to send to people and ensure a reprint. Yet we cannot be certain that he really made all the pronouncements attributed to him, since, according to Mr. Lelyveld, Gandhi insisted that journalists file "not the words that had actually come from his mouth but a version he ­authorized after his sometimes heavy editing of the transcripts."

    We do know for certain that he ­advised the Czechs and Jews to adopt nonviolence toward the Nazis, saying that "a single Jew standing up and ­refusing to bow to Hitler's decrees" might be enough "to melt Hitler's heart." (Nonviolence, in Gandhi's view, would apparently have also worked for the Chinese against the Japanese ­invaders.) Starting a letter to Adolf ­Hitler with the words "My friend," Gandhi egotistically asked: "Will you listen to the appeal of one who has ­deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success?" He advised the Jews of Palestine to "rely on the goodwill of the Arabs" and wait for a Jewish state "till Arab ­opinion is ripe for it."

    In August 1942, with the Japanese at the gates of India, having captured most of Burma, Gandhi initiated a ­campaign designed to hinder the war effort and force the British to "Quit ­India." Had the genocidal Tokyo regime captured northeastern India, as it ­almost certainly would have succeeded in doing without British troops to halt it, the results for the Indian population would have been catastrophic. No fewer than 17% of Filipinos perished under Japanese occupation, and there is no reason to suppose that Indians would have fared any better. Fortunately, the British viceroy, Lord Wavell, simply imprisoned Gandhi and 60,000 of his followers and got on with the business of fighting the Japanese.

    Gandhi claimed that there was "an exact parallel" between the British ­Empire and the Third Reich, yet while the British imprisoned him in luxury in the Aga Khan's palace for 21 months ­until the Japanese tide had receded in 1944, Hitler stated that he would simply have had Gandhi and his supporters shot. (Gandhi and Mussolini got on well when they met in December 1931, with the Great Soul praising the Duce's "service to the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about a coordination between Capital and ­Labour, his passionate love for his people.") During his 21 years in South Africa (1893-1914), Gandhi had not opposed the Boer War or the Zulu War of 1906—he raised a battalion of stretcher-bearers in both cases—and after his return to India during World War I he offered to be Britain's "recruiting agent-in-chief." Yet he was comfortable opposing the war against fascism.

    Although Gandhi's nonviolence made him an icon to the American civil-rights movement, Mr. Lelyveld shows how ­implacably racist he was toward the blacks of South Africa. "We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs," Gandhi complained during one of his campaigns for the rights of ­Indians settled there. "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—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."

    In an open letter to the legislature of South Africa's Natal province, ­Gandhi wrote of how "the Indian is ­being dragged down to the position of the raw Kaffir," someone, he later stated, "whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and ­nakedness." Of white Afrikaaners and Indians, he wrote: "We
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 2:04 PM GMT
    "We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they do." That was possibly why he refused to allow his son Manilal to marry ­Fatima Gool, a Muslim, despite publicly promoting Muslim-Hindu unity.

    Gandhi's pejorative reference to ­nakedness is ironic considering that, as Mr. Lelyveld details, when he was in his 70s and close to leading India to ­independence, he encouraged his ­17-year-old great-niece, Manu, to be naked during her "nightly cuddles" with him. After sacking several long-standing and loyal members of his 100-strong ­personal entourage who might disapprove of this part of his spiritual quest, Gandhi began sleeping naked with Manu and other young women. He told a woman on one occasion: "Despite my best efforts, the organ remained aroused. It was an altogether strange and shameful experience."

    Yet he could also be vicious to Manu, whom he on one occasion forced to walk through a thick jungle where sexual assaults had occurred in order for her to retrieve a pumice stone that he liked to use on his feet. When she returned in tears, Gandhi "cackled" with laughter at her and said: "If some ruffian had carried you off and you had met your death courageously, my heart would have danced with joy."

    Yet as Mr. Lelyveld makes abundantly clear, Gandhi's organ probably only rarely became aroused with his naked young ladies, because the love of his life was a German-Jewish architect and bodybuilder, Hermann Kallenbach, for whom Gandhi left his wife in 1908. "Your portrait (the only one) stands on my mantelpiece in my bedroom," he wrote to Kallenbach. "The mantelpiece is opposite to the bed." For some ­reason, cotton wool and Vaseline were "a constant reminder" of Kallenbach, which Mr. Lelyveld believes might ­relate to the enemas Gandhi gave ­himself, although there could be other, less generous, explanations.

    Gandhi wrote to Kallenbach about "how completely you have taken ­possession of my body. This is slavery with a vengeance." Gandhi nicknamed himself "Upper House" and Kallenbach "Lower House," and he made Lower House promise not to "look lustfully upon any woman." The two then pledged "more love, and yet more love . . . such love as they hope the world has not yet seen."

    They were parted when Gandhi ­returned to India in 1914, since the German national could not get permission to travel to India during ­wartime—though Gandhi never gave up the dream of having him back, writing him in 1933 that "you are always ­before my mind's eye." Later, on his ashram, where even married "inmates" had to swear celibacy, Gandhi said: "I cannot imagine a thing as ugly as the intercourse of men and women." You could even be thrown off the ashram for "excessive tickling." (Salt was also forbidden, because it "arouses the senses.")

    In his tract "Hind Swaraj" ("India's Freedom"), Gandhi denounced lawyers, railways and parliamentary politics, even though he was a professional lawyer who constantly used railways to get to meetings to argue that India ­deserved its own parliament. After ­taking a vow against milk for its ­supposed aphrodisiac properties, he ­contracted hemorrhoids, so he said that it was only cow's milk that he had ­forsworn, not goat's. His absolute ­opposition to any birth control except sexual abstinence, in a country that ­today has more people living on less than $1.25 a day than there were Indians in his lifetime, was more dangerous.

    Telling the Muslims who had been responsible for the massacres of thousands of Hindus in East Bengal in 1946 that Islam "was a religion of peace," Gandhi nonetheless said to three of his workers who preceded him into its ­villages: "There will be no tears but only joy if tomorrow I get the news that all three of you were killed." To a Hindu who asked how his co-religionists could ever return to villages from which they had been ethnically cleansed, Gandhi blithely replied: "I do not mind if each and every one of the 500 families in your area is done to death." What mattered for him was the principle of nonviolence, and anyhow, as he told an orthodox Brahmin, he believed in re­incarnation.

    Gandhi's support for the Muslim ­caliphate in the 1920s—for which he said he was "ready today to sacrifice my sons, my wife and my friends"—Mr. Lelyveld shows to have been merely a cynical maneuver to keep the Muslim League in his coalition for as long as possible. When his campaign for unity failed, he blamed a higher power, ­saying in 1927: "I toiled for it here, I did penance for it, but God was not ­satisfied. God did not want me to take any credit for the work."

    Gandhi was willing to stand up for the Untouchables, just not at the ­crucial moment when they were ­demanding the right to pray in temples in 1924-25. He was worried about alienating high-caste Hindus. "Would you teach the Gospel to a cow?" he asked a visiting missionary in 1936. "Well, some of the Untouchables are worse than cows in their understanding."

    Gandhi's first Great Fast—undertaken despite his belief that hunger strikes were "the worst form of coercion, which militates against the fundamental principles of non-violence"—was launched in 1932 to prevent Untouchables from ­having their own reserved seats in any future Indian parliament. Because he said that it was "a religious, not a political question," he accepted no debate on the matter. He elsewhere stated that "the abolition of Untouchability would not entail caste Hindus having to dine with former Untouchables." At his ­monster rallies against Untouchability in the 1930s, which tens of thousands of people attended, the Untouchables themselves were kept in holding pens well away from the caste Hindus.

    Of course, any coalition movement ­involves a certain degree of compromise and occasional hypocrisy. But Gandhi's saintly image, his martyrdom at the hands of a Hindu fanatic in 1948 and Martin Luther King Jr.'s adoption of him as a role model for the American civil-rights movement have largely protected him from critical scrutiny. The French man of letters Romain Rolland called Gandhi "a mortal demi-god" in a 1924 hagiography, catching the tone of most writing about him. People used to take away the sand that had touched his feet as relics—one relation kept Gandhi's ­fingernail clippings—and modern biographers seem to treat him with much the same reverence today. Mr. Lelyveld is not immune, making labored excuses for him at every turn of this nonetheless well-researched and well-written book.

    Yet of the four great campaigns of Gandhi's life—for Hindu-Muslim unity, against importing British textiles, for ending Untouchability and for getting the British off the subcontinent—only the last succeeded, and that simply ­because the near-bankrupt British led by the anti-imperialist Clement Attlee desperately wanted to leave India anyhow after a debilitating world war.

    It was not much of a record for someone who had been invested with "sole ­executive authority" over the Indian ­National Congress as early as in December 1921. But then, unlike any other ­politician, Gandhi cannot be judged by ­actual results, because he was the "Great Soul."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2011 2:05 PM GMT
    Seems the writer is not sure of what he wrote, be it true or not....