PDA

View Full Version : Why Gandhi denied Quinine to wife, Kasturba?



Fallen King
10th November 2014, 06:56
The Ottawa City Council voted to place a statue of Gandhi in Strathcona Park (Sandy Hill). We oppose this statue for many reasons which have been previously covered. There are so many good reasons to oppose ever allowing such a statue that it is difficult to find space for covering them all. However, one more reason which we believe demands immediate attention has just recently come to our notice.

As documented in the book “100 Things You’re Not Suppose to Know” by Russ Kirk (The Disinformation Company, 2008), there is a disturbing conclusion to the story of the death of Gandhi’s wife, Kasturba. Kirk sums up the problem with the following title: “Gandhi refused to let his dying wife take penicillin yet took quinine to save himself.” This incident further reveals Gandhi’s stunning hypocrisy as he spent his life masking his actions of intolerance and racism with words of peace and love. We have included the full story of Kasturba’s death below.

[The following is an excerpt from pp. 167-169 of 100 THINGS YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW by Russ Kick]

GANDHI REFUSED TO LET HIS DYING WIFE TAKE PENICILLIN YET TOOK QUININE TO SAVE HIMSELF

Gandhi is often ranked, directly or subtly, alongside Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King Jr. as one of the greatest peacemakers – indeed, one of the greatest human beings – of all time. The mythology that surrounds him – which he built, leaving his followers, admirers, and hagiographers to reinforce and embellish – has almost completely smothered the many unflattering facts about him.

In such a compact book, space doesn’t permit a full exploration of Gandhi’s numerous, consequential skeletons – his racism toward blacks and whites, his betrayal of the Untouchables, his acquiescence toward the Nazis. Instead let’s focus on something more personal and, in some ways, more upsetting.

In August 1942, Gandhi and his wife, Kasturba, among others, were imprisoned by the British in Aga Khan Palace, near Poona. Kasturba had poor circulation and she’d weathered several heart attacks. While detained in the palace, she developed bronchial pneumonia. One of her four sons, Devadas, wanted her to take penicillin. Gandhi refused. He was okay with her receiving traditional remedies, such as water from the Ganges, but he refused her any medicines, including this newfangled antibiotic, saying that the Almighty would have to heal her.

“The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi” quotes him on February 19, 1944; “If God wills it, He will pull her through.” “Gandhi: A Life” adds this wisdom from the Mahatma: “You cannot cure your mother now, no matter what wonder drugs you may muster. She is in God’s hands now.” Three days later, Devadas was still pushing for the penicillin, but Gandhi shot back: “Why don’t you trust God?” Kasturba died that day.

The next night, Gandhi cried out: “But how God tested my faith!” He told one of Kasturba’s doctors that the antibiotic wouldn’t have saved her and that allowing her to have it “would have meant the bankruptcy of my faith.” (Emphasis mine.)

But Gandhi’s faith wasn’t much of an obstacle a short time later when it was his *** on the line. A mere six weeks after Kasturba died, Gandhi was flattened by malaria. He stuck to an all-liquid diet as his doctors tried to convince him to take quinine. But Gandhi completely refused and died of the disease, right? No, actually, after three weeks of deterioration, he took the diabolical drug and quickly recovered. The stuff about trusting God’s will and testing faith only applied when his wife’s life hung in the balance. When he needed a drug to stave off the Grim Reaper, down the hatch it went.


http://www.newsrepublic.in/2012/12/11/gandhi-kasturba-malariya/

^ I never heard about this until now.

“Gandhi refused to let his dying wife take penicillin yet took quinine to save himself.”

RWAC
10th November 2014, 10:37
I don't know how seriously to take someone who writes stuff like "...when his own *** was on the line..."? in a book. Anyways, twisting facts to malign the Mahatama is nothing new.

The author would have done well to do some more research. Kasturba was herself insistent on not trying many cures because she believed her time was up.

Varun
10th November 2014, 10:47
Gotta be a slow news day if we have to go back to devising conspiracy theories around good old Mohandas to satiate our requirement for some India-bashing. :39:

Itachi
10th November 2014, 10:51
OP didn't do his homework well. there are much BIGGER accusation against gandhi than above.

Indiafan
10th November 2014, 13:08
The thing about great people is, they are human too, with their own flaws. So when we celebrate them, we take (or should take) the great things they produced (great ideas, non-violence, etc) and reject the flaws they have. Many amazing writers, philosophers, scientists, politicians have been pathetic human beings. But they came up with great ideas which inspired many. So a statue of Mahatma is celebrating his ideals and not his flaws. I don't think (or at least I hope not) that when people look up to Gandhi they reject western medicine. They think of unity and non-violence.

CricketCartoons
10th November 2014, 13:24
the thing with historical figures is that they gain reputation posthumously. after death, they are turned into an icon from the humans they were. gandhi had his many flaws. like his belief that sex was dirty, and he went to extreme lengths to defeat those desires (which is OK, but he should not have used others for his personal experiments). he also had racist views during his formative years (but then he was not the man he would later become). his economic model was flawed, and so was his patronising views about dalits (whom he termed harijans). even his method of going on hunger strike when his demands were not met was irrational (like he did for poona pact). but he had his strengths too..firmly believing in non violence and respect for all religions. and it is because of that is he remembered. his views on jesus christ and prophet muhammad are often quoted by practitioners of those religions. does it mean we should see him as flawless? or do his flaws take away the positive ideals he stood for? No. see him for what he was and try to imbibe the good and avoid the bad.

Cpt. Rishwat
10th November 2014, 19:14
Well on the bright side, he did eventually take the quinine and as a result one of the world's most famous leaders was able to continue his great legacy. I don't know why some people get so sensitive about this or refer to it as India bashing. What...we aren't allowed to discuss events from the lives of historical figures now?

Cpt. Rishwat
10th November 2014, 19:14
Shame about Kasturba though.

Laparwah
10th November 2014, 23:51
Gandhi also did so wrong by claiming celibacy. This was very unfair and a punishment to his long suffering spouse.

KB
11th November 2014, 00:44
As Patrick French wrote, "If celebrity is a mask that eats into the face, posthumous fame is more like an accretion of silt and barnacles that can leave the face unrecognizable, or recognizable only as something it is not. We might feel we know Mohandas Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Joan of Arc or Martin Luther King Jr., but, rather, we know their iconic value: their portraits or statues, their famous deeds and sayings. We have trouble seeing them as their contemporaries did—as people.”

Gandhi’s impact on Indian nationalism was immense. Support for Indian independence widened and dug deeper roots largely due to Gandhi. He diminished the element of fear of imperial government as well as questioning the moral basis of colonial rule. He played a key role in re-structuring the Congress party in the 1920s such that it was able to mobilise and importantly institutionalise popular support for the freedom struggle.

But one should not overlook the ambiguities of his life, achievements and legacy. This is not to diminish him, but to inject a dose of realism.

Gandhi lauded poverty, and pre-colonial rural life, but accepted donations from industrialists such as Birla. He injected pride in the masses, especially the poor, but the support he aroused meant that the Congress could avoid a serious programme to appeal to the under-privileged. The impoverished were inspired by Gandhi, but the Congress came to represent predominantly the interests of industrial capitalists and richer peasantry. “For the poor” wrote Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose, “suffering from economic oppression and social discrimination in rural and urban areas alike, Gandhi simply offered the palliative remedy of trusteeship.”

Deeply sceptical of modern civilisation and the modern state, Gandhi glorified the ancient past and envisaged a political system of self-governing and self-sufficient villages. His India of his dreams was a rural country with little state intervention. After independence he advised the Congress to ditch power and become an organisation of social workers. But such views were a stretch removed from reality. He possessed no means to realise his idealism.

Despite an anti-statist outlook, the man he effectively anointed as the future Prime Minister of a free India - Jawaharlal Nehru – believed fervently in the capacity of modern state to achieve transformation in lives of ordinary people.

He was certainly no religious bigot and harboured no malice towards Muslims, but his pervasive use of the Hindu idiom meant he alienated many Muslims from the nationalist movement.

His campaigns brought many women into public life out of seclusion, yet his views of women were often condescending and conservative and in the words of David Arnold, “in the main Gandhi regarded women as more potent as political and moral symbols than as real-life activists.”

On caste, there were similar ambiguities. For him caste was not about social hierarchy and he advocated the purging of notions of superiority and inferiority, of dominance and subordination from caste. Caste as practiced in India was for him a ‘monster’ an ‘excrescence’ and a ‘travesty of varna’. By the mid 1930s he was advocating removal of restrictions on inter-dining and inter-marriage. His personal example of mixing freely with the untouchables, eating with them and admitting them to his ashrams, were quite radical by orthodox Hindu standards for the time. However others have stated that Gandhi’s approach to the untouchable issue was “insensitive and demeaning” in the words of the historian Burton Stein. He once stated that “some of the untouchables are worse than cows in understanding.” For his critics, the term he coined ‘Harijan’ – children of God – was patronizing and rationalized the dominance of the upper castes over God’s ‘children’. The Harijan movement for the likes of Ambedkar did not address the underlying social and economic reasons of oppression.

The Congress, under the influence of Gandhi, nevertheless became associated with idealism and sacrifice as many of its activities went to prison or faced coercion from the police. Nevertheless the prestige and status that the Congress would eventually enjoy meant that it attracted many people that were more interested in the fruits of political power and patronage than any Gandhian idealism.

The ambiguities did not stop at his death. He appears on the Indian rupee, and though cast as “father” of India, his ideas, often considered idiosyncratic by his colleagues, were generally ignored as independence was won.

More recently some his fads, eccentricities and odd statements have received attention. It is certainly true that he was involved in bizarre sexual experiments, sleeping naked with young females. It is true he held some odd opinions such as equating hospitals with sin or seeing great value in human excrement. After the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in 1919, he said of the dead, that they were "were definitely not heroic martyrs. Were they heroes they would have unsheathed the sword, or used at least their sticks or they would have bared their breast to Dyer and died bravely when he came there in all insolence. They would never have taken to their heels."

But for all his complexity he remains an inspiration for many around the world. To use one example of why this is - after the Calcutta killings of 1946, Gandhi stayed in a poor Muslim area praying and fasting for peace. Calcutta did not see a repeat of 1946 killings at the time of partition, perhaps at least in part to the moral influence and authority that Gandhi exerted.

munda_khi
11th November 2014, 01:25
The thing about great people is, they are human too, with their own flaws. So when we celebrate them, we take (or should take) the great things they produced (great ideas, non-violence, etc) and reject the flaws they have. Many amazing writers, philosophers, scientists, politicians have been pathetic human beings. But they came up with great ideas which inspired many. So a statue of Mahatma is celebrating his ideals and not his flaws. I don't think (or at least I hope not) that when people look up to Gandhi they reject western medicine. They think of unity and non-violence.

you just kill the whole discussion. now what we will do for fun.

freelance_cricketer
11th November 2014, 01:46
The thing about criticism is firstly, it should be polite and backed by substance, secondly its a two way traffic. You have to be prepared to take as much as you give. Lastly, people are known and celebrated for specific things they did. Putting them down for thigs they are noted for is again, kind of pointless. In this case, Gandhi is celebrated for reviving Indian nationalism. The independence may not have been a direct result of his struggles, the solutions he gave might now have served everyone's interests and he might have various personal flaws but his work to unite people, empower them, give self respect and sense of dignity to them was immense. He gave a sense of righteousness to the whole movement, a copy book approach to freedom from oppression.

Abhilash93
12th November 2014, 16:24
He believed in Naturopathy. Also Pencillin was just discovered at that time. Not much was known about it in India.
On the other hand, Quinine occurs naturally in the bark of cinchona tree and it was known for centuries. So, it was fine for him.

Cpt. Rishwat
12th November 2014, 19:24
Why do they want a statue of Gandhi in Ottawa anyway? Isn't it going to look out of place there?

nish_mate
12th November 2014, 19:31
Why do they want a statue of Gandhi in Ottawa anyway? Isn't it going to look out of place there?

Agree with ya Captain- they got a statue of him in Moscow and cough cough in London as well- perish the thought and that too nowhere near a Temple in Wembley!!!

Blooody Hell Oh Twaddi

Cpt. Rishwat
12th November 2014, 19:35
Agree with ya Captain- they got a statue of him in Moscow and cough cough in London as well- perish the thought and that too nowhere near a Temple in Wembley!!!

Blooody Hell Oh Twaddi

Where's the one in London then? Statues at Madam Tussaud's don't count so I hope you aren't being a naughty lad and trying to slip that one in.

nish_mate
12th November 2014, 19:38
Where's the one in London then? Statues at Madam Tussaud's don't count so I hope you aren't being a naughty lad and trying to slip that one in.

There is one in Tavistock Square- Bloomsbury, Central London

Fallen King
12th November 2014, 20:24
“Gandhi refused to let his dying wife take penicillin yet took quinine to save himself.” is not joke.

Several points have been raised such as:

* Gandhi also did so wrong by claiming celibacy. This was very unfair and a punishment to his long suffering spouse.
* Experimenting
* Racism thought [black, dalit]

Itachi
12th November 2014, 20:32
“Gandhi refused to let his dying wife take penicillin yet took quinine to save himself.” is not joke.

Several points have been raised such as:

* Gandhi also did so wrong by claiming celibacy. This was very unfair and a punishment to his long suffering spouse.
* Experimenting
* Racism thought [black, dalit]

what's there to discuss?

if you believe it, then it is the case of every saint has a past, every sinner has a future.

simple as that.

Fallen King
12th November 2014, 20:37
what's there to discuss?

if you believe it, then it is the case of every saint has a past, every sinner has a future.

simple as that.

The topic is, "Why Gandhi denied Quinine to wife, Kasturba?". Not every saint has a past, every sinner has a future.

Stick to the topic. If you have nothing to add, then feel free to leave this thread.

Itachi
12th November 2014, 21:14
The topic is, "Why Gandhi denied Quinine to wife, Kasturba?". Not every saint has a past, every sinner has a future.

Stick to the topic. If you have nothing to add, then feel free to leave this thread.

the problem is, except gandhi and kasturba, no one can give a 100% accurate answer, can one? you are asking a question which is impossible to answer for anyone.

what goes between a husband and wife is their problem.... why peek at windows of others house?

there can be 1000s of reasons why gandhi didn't allow.

may be because kasturba was suffering heart arrythmia and quinine could have evoked a myocardial infarction.

or may be he saw blood in her urine? or may be she was having severe pain after taking it?

All these are side effects of quinine.

this question doesn't even makes a sense in the place.

moumotta
13th November 2014, 01:57
The topic is, "Why Gandhi denied Quinine to wife, Kasturba?". Not every saint has a past, every sinner has a future.

Stick to the topic. If you have nothing to add, then feel free to leave this thread.

If you really insist on being pedantic then the reason is because quinine was never prescribed to Kasturba. hehe.

Fallen King
13th November 2014, 02:40
If you really insist on being pedantic then the reason is because quinine was never prescribed to Kasturba. hehe.


the problem is, except gandhi and kasturba, no one can give a 100% accurate answer, can one? you are asking a question which is impossible to answer for anyone.

what goes between a husband and wife is their problem.... why peek at windows of others house?

there can be 1000s of reasons why gandhi didn't allow.

may be because kasturba was suffering heart arrythmia and quinine could have evoked a myocardial infarction.

or may be he saw blood in her urine? or may be she was having severe pain after taking it?

All these are side effects of quinine.

this question doesn't even makes a sense in the place.

Fair enough. Good points so far. But i am not convinced.

One point must be addressed;

Gandhi did stop his son from helping his dying mother to take penicillin. No matter what angle you play with but his son was stopped by his father by helping his dying mother to take penicillin. Faith and other issues didn't come to mind to one of sons of Gandhi.



In August 1942, Gandhi and his wife, Kasturba, among others, were imprisoned by the British in Aga Khan Palace, near Poona. Kasturba had poor circulation and she’d weathered several heart attacks. While detained in the palace, she developed bronchial pneumonia. One of her four sons, Devadas, wanted her to take penicillin. Gandhi refused. He was okay with her receiving traditional remedies, such as water from the Ganges, but he refused her any medicines, including this newfangled antibiotic, saying that the Almighty would have to heal her.

moumotta
13th November 2014, 03:06
Fair enough. Good points so far. But i am not convinced.

One point must be addressed;

Gandhi did stop his son from helping his dying mother to take penicillin. No matter what angle you play with but his son was stopped by his father by helping his dying mother to take penicillin. Faith and other issues didn't come to mind to one of sons of Gandhi.

You need to spell out more clearly what exactly is bothering you. Is it that his son thought differently from him or that he did not allow use of an antibiotic to save his wife's life or something else.

Fallen King
13th November 2014, 03:13
You need to spell out more clearly what exactly is bothering you. Is it that his son thought differently from him or that he did not allow use of an antibiotic to save his wife's life or something else.

Because of his dying mother, he compromised faith to persue safe course of action. He couldn't see his dying mother in suffering.

How did Gandhi put brave face and let his dying wife continue to suffer until she died when there was penicillin available? That is hardest thing to do so.

moumotta
13th November 2014, 03:21
Because of his dying mother, he compromised faith to persue safe course of action. He couldn't see his dying mother in suffering.

How did Gandhi put brave face and let his dying wife continue to suffer until she died when there was penicillin available? That is hardest thing to do so.

Gandhi did not believe in modern procedures or medicine, particularly the invasive ones or antibiotics. I know some Jains who do not take antibiotics because it works by killing bacteria which is against their religion. There are people in the western world who go all natural and do not use allopathic medicines or procedures.

Does that makes these people quirky- Yes
Does it make them evil- No