Musing on the Mahatma and the Nature of Truth

TS Eliot called April the cruelest month of all, but he obviously didn’t live in Michigan. February, our cruelest month, ended 11 days ago, and I was happy to see it go. At the same time, sadly, one of the month’s few redeeming virtues, Turner Classic Movies’“31 Days of Oscar” also came to a close.

Among the award-winning movies I watched on TCM last month was Sir Richard Attenborough’s epic Gandhi, which won eight Oscars including Best Picture in 1983. I was spurred on to watch because I had also been reading Arthur Herman’s interesting book Gandhi & Churchill, which is sort of a combination biography of both men intertwined with the story of the collapse of the British Empire.

The movie is long, three plus hours, but it pales in comparison to the book, which weighs in at over 700 pages (including footnotes and index – there are +/- 600 pages of actual text). But if you consider Gandhi lived for 78 years it’s pretty obvious that neither the book nor film will do him justice. And yet … each of them works well, in their own way.

Like any good moviemaker, Richard Attenborough doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. Slogging though Herman’s book and then watching the movie left me gasping at the omissions and inaccuracies of the movie. For example:
• You get no idea that Gandhi lived in South Africa for 25 years.
• You also get no idea that originally his goal was equality with the British, not independence.
• Gandhi was married at age 13, took a vow of celibacy at 37 (which he honored the remaining 41 years of his life), and was estranged from his alcoholic oldest son. His family paid a heavy price for his work and his family relationships were often very difficult and decidedly less-than-flattering for a man known as “The Mahatma.” (“Great Soul” in Sanskrit.) Rather than portray any of this complexity, the filmmakers simply ignored it.
• Gandhi experienced bitter defeats and, on the whole, more failure than success in his life. He was tormented by the failure of the Indian population to adopt his principles of ahisma (non-violent resistance), and was frustrated that eventually the British rulers figured out how to manage him. If he announced he was going to start an ahisma, they put him in prison and the protest would fizzle without leadership. If he decided to go on a hunger strike to protest their successful defusing of his protest, they would release him so he wouldn’t die in prison. Dramatic moments shown in the movie where the entire Indian population and the British authorities wait in suspense to see if he will take nourishment never quite happened like that in real life.
• His most successful ahisma was the Salt March of 1931 – yet, if one reads the facts carefully, the Salt March didn’t actually change anything in India. The British gave up India in 1947, a result of their Empire collapsing under its own weight following World War II. It’s an oversimplification to say that Gandhi drove the British out of India. It’s more accurate to say he helped wake the world up to the evils of colonialism and oppression.
• Finally, the movie doesn’t explain what motivated the people who assassinated Gandhi. If you don’t know the details, you may find yourself scratching your head asking “Why did they do that?” His death wasn’t the work of a madman like, say, John Lennon’s, it was a combination of both political and religious forces in India that are a huge part of that nation’s history.

And yet again … given all this and many more examples one could list of ways the movie compresses and distorts, the movie still works mightily. I’ve seen it three or four times and found myself moved once again by it. Really good movies are not about getting the facts straight, they are about telling a compelling story by capturing your emotions, and I found myself in tears three times while watching it. For the emotional wallop alone, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend the movie.

Is it accurate?

Not so much.

But is it true?

Absolutely.

So that’s my conundrum of the moment, the gap between the facts and the truth. I know it’s a slippery slope to take a stand on, but that’s where I find myself standing these days. Remember how in the book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe there is a chapter called “Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time” and then later there’s another chapter called “Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time”? That’s the way I’m feeling about truth today. There’s truth and then there’s something deeper called TRUTH. The Gandhi book deals more in the first, the movie more in the second. They are both important.

Can things be true but not factual? Before all of you liberal arts majors answer yes, think about what happens in a courtroom or about scientific investigation. The question isn’t as simple as it seems. I want to say yes to my own question -- but at the same time when I’m on trial I don’t want a witness against me answering “Yes, metaphorically speaking” when asked to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Anyway, if you haven’t seen the movie Gandhi and have three hours, watch it. It’s a great, great movie. Yes, it’s hagiography, but its good hagiography.

If you have three weeks or so to give to a reading project, tackle Herman’s book. You will learn a lot about India, Gandhi, the British Empire and Winston Churchill (another giant personality unmentioned by me but prominent in the book.)

If you have a chance, do both and join me in contemplating the elusive nature of truth.