Attenborough's Gandhi

Attenborough’s Gandhi

           Literature is self-validating. That is to say, a book is not justified by its author’s worthiness to write it, but by the quality what has been written. There are terrible books arise directly out of experience, and extraordinary imaginative feats dealing with themes which the author has been obliged to approach from the outside.

  Salman Rushdie is  a provocative  writer who likes to remain in controversy for one or the other things. He compares migration to translation .‘ Imaginary Homeland ’ is a collection of Rushdie’s essays . Reading ‘ Imaginary Homeland ’ is an collection essays , review and interview  which were made for 1981 to 1996.these essays deal with Political, Social, and literary topics. Rushdie's  in his essay colonialism and the ironies of culture, film, politicians, the Labor Party, religious fundamentalism in America, racial situation  and the preciousness of the imagination and of free expression.

              The film is about a biography,not a political work .even if one aspects this distinction, one must reply that  a biography, if it is not turn into hagiography,(see only one side) aspects of the subjects as well as loveable side.Attenborough’s Gandhi –essay deals with the Indian leader called Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

        Looking at Postcolonial wayIn this essay he deconstruct the movie ‘Gandhi’ by Attenborough. Ben kinglsy has played role of Gandhiji this movie. Beginning of the essay he saying that “ Deification is an Indian disease”. In India , Gandhi is higher than anyone but he has a question (Postcolonial mind always with questions)which he asked to people many a time  – “ why should American academy wish to help him by offering in temple eight glittering statuettes to a film.”inanswer Rushdie might be viewing Gandhi as a mystical  person. India is the fountain head of the spirituality .Gandhi is the famous figure and leader of India. Here in the movie Attenborough has compred Gandhi with Christ. He also said that anything can be achieved through submission, self-sacrifice, and Non-violence.

              First of all, why they have chosen Gandhi? Not any other patriotic figure or spiritual figure like Sardar Patel?ShubhaBhose? Why no Tagore? The answer is that theey want to represent Gandhi as Torch- bearer of Non-violence .if the opposition and the independence movement is important they can choose Bose, but Bose is not chose as he is enough strong and intelligent that he could push out to the Britisher with Violent.

                In the Attenborough has not presented Gandhi’s thought about ‘ Brahmcharya’ . The book ‘ My Experiments with the truth ’ is not fully justified we know Gandhiji’s notion and practice about Brahmcharya, the matter is of ambiguity .Jwaharlal Nehru has been presented as the disciple of Gandhiji. While actually he sharing the same stage with Gandhiji. In this movie he is very minor character and follower of Gandhiji. Mohammad ali Jinnah is presented as villaneous figure for India .actually Jinnah has same intellect and passion for India as Gandhiji as ,in movie his character presented as Count Dracula.

                In the movie , Attenborough didn’t include speech of NathuramGodse Because  he knows that no one like to watch or listen NathuramGodse as he has killed ‘ Mahatma’ in that case Nathurama villain and if he has included this portion into movie than this movie might not be selected as a Oscar winning movie .here we can say that Richard Attenborough has chosen the events in the movie is distorted history.In the movie NathuramGodse is not named , he is a member of the Hindu-fanatic RSS, who blamed Gandhi as a reason for the Partition .in the movie he is in crowd that represents him differently.Godse was not the representative of the mob because he was not alone in his work .movie also omits Gandhi’s fondness for Indian billionaire industrialist. He died in  Birla house in Delhi.

Rushdie Criticizes the Amritsar massacre Dyer’s action at Jallianwala Bagh.

                There are many powerful sequences in this movie. For example the Amritsar massacre. In court martial an Englishman asks the question about Jallianwala Bagh to Dyer. The scene say that his actions were those of a cruel and immediately after condemned by Anglo-Indian. It was false. The British in Punjab in 1919 were afraid of Second Indian  mutinity. When Dyer goes to England , he has welcomed as a hero. So meaning was completely changed .

                Thus Rushdie gives his reviws about Attenborough’s film and at end ,he writes that a very significant line.

“ Rich men like emperors, have always had a weakness for tame holy men, for saints”