What Did Mahatma Gandhi Like to Eat?

I cannot follow anyone blindly but always appreciate the good qualities. Gandhi is one whom I definitely respect for his contribution to the freedom struggle of India. My respect got a little blow recently when I read about Gandhiji's method of experiment to control himself among the young girls. That was ridiculous and I would say that no men would approve of such a deed even if they are die hard supporters of Gandhi. I won't discuss it further but the more we will dig inside then there will be some or the other revelation that may shock us extremely.

@Shampa : Yes he did indeed try out the experiment with young girls to try to test his brahamacharya and this and some other experiments are generally not highlighted out of respect to him. He was after all a human being with many faults. Also goes to prove that food has no effect on a person's conduct as is being propagated by some vested interests. Gandhijis leadership of freedom movement is a grand contribution worth admiring. 

This is what I wanted to highlight @vijay He should be admired for his contribution but presenting him as God in every walk of life is not acceptable to me. I have seen my father who was a simple man in every sense of the term but he was not a popular name, so what, Should the definition of simplicity change? Like my father there are numerous simple and honest beings but we don't love to follow them rather we try to follow those about whom we are only superfluously aware. What Gandhiji did in the name of Bhramacharya, if such is practised by any man in the present era, won't he be punished? So, it's better that let Gandhi as a freedom fighter be treated on a different pedestal from Gandhi, the man. Even in his freedom struggle he was also a biased man. He was against Subhash Bose and a simple man cannot be a biased man.   

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

This just came to my mind , apparently Sarojini Naidu once joked saying that it cost the nation a fortune to keep Gandhiji in poverty ! Gandhiji was no doubt a simple man with simple habits but now people seem to want to make a  saint out of him, who seems like a dull uninteresting person whereas I am sure there are many more interesting facets to his life rather than his diet and dress !

I believe that simplicity just meas that you remain usual self and do not do anything that invites othes' intention. Glamourous life style attracts peoples' intention and thus this is not simple. But if you een make a show of simplicity, you are not simple. To elicidate, Kejriwal andothers attempted to show their simplicty by travelling in metro rail and other gimmicks. This is not simplicity. simplicity means that you live in a manner others placed in your position would do. By this yardstick, Gandhi was not so simple. He ate simple food including goat milk. It is widely believed that the goat ate dry fruits so that the milk is very rich.    

  

After all he was human and I am sure he did have some faults like any of us but he was also a visionary in his own way especially where women's issues were concerned ..In Paris he said, "I have no doubt that women can do infinitely more than men against war." He elaborated his argument to the women there. "Answer for yourselves what your great soldiers and generals would do, if their wives and daughters and mothers refused to countenance their participation in militarism in any shape or form." 

He no doubted respected dignityof women but he also held the view that a woman's proper place is home. He did not favor women sorkinh outside. Bread winning is man's job and housekeeping and upbringing children is women's.   

 

I guess his views on women mirrored the trend during those times...He also said ' Educate a man you educate an individual, educate a woman and you educate a generation ' which shows that his idea of woman was not entirely ancient. I have heard many highly educated men saying the same thing , they feel that nature meant woman to make a home and take care of children and man to fend for his family and protect them.Times have changed and roles have changed but I often wonder at what cost ??

Gandhiji's views on women may not be an entirely new concept. But Gandhiji, led  by example. Kasturba and GandhiJi together worked for cleaning the public toilets.

@Shampa :  Gandhiji was not against Subhash Bose. It is a common myth very popular and widely accepted in Bengal. If that was so he would not have become President of Congress for two terms. Bose was impatient by nature and felt Gandhi's methods would not win freedom for India. So his outlook was different. As majority of Congress was with Gandhi's view Bose had to chart out his way elesewhere. But both had deep respect for each other. The best tribute was paid to Bose by Gandhi when he called him a patriot of patriots. Their common goal was independent India but paths chosen were different.

With all due apologies, I would like to say, some of the members are making mountains out of molehills.  The thread says about Mahatma Gandhi's food habits. Did he ever say anywhere that people should  emulate him or follow him ? If one finds his food habits are good, he follows them. Otherwise not. There ends the matter.

I feel we should be respectful towards all our great leaders and remember their contributions. It was a long struggle following which India attained freedom. Be it Gandhiji or Netaji, they did what they thought best for the country. We should acknowledge that and remember only that. Our children learn what we teach them. If we do character analyzing in our minds, our teaching to our next generation is influenced and they, after all these years of independence would, know very little about the real contributions of the great leaders.

Absolutely. Forgetting our Leaders especially those who contributed their selfless services to the Society and the country is mere ingratitude.

@vijay My opinion has nothing to do with Bengal. It is not based upon Bengali lineage. After Bose won the presidential election and Pattabhi Sitaramayya lost then Gandhiji declared it as his personal loss and that make me feel he was biased. Subhash Bose gave the title of Father of the Nation to Gandhiji and so there is no reason to think that they did not admire each other.

@rambabu We are all adults and it is a proven fact that one aspect of a discussion may lead to another aspect and that's how discussion takes place. I think on this thread no one has opined that Gandhiji forced others to follow him. No, he didn't. but, do you think that's an enough reason not to talk about the aspects of a public figure which we do not appreciate? If we can talk about good qualities then we can talk about something which we do not like and that too when the thread talks about simplicity of Gandhiji. You may have started the thread about his food habit but it led to Sarojini Naidu and so on. What I wrote about Bapu is my personal opinion and have not represented it in a derogatory manner.

@Lopamudra The intention was not to insult a great leader. For me Gandhiji and Subhash Bose are equal and I admire them a lot but obviously there are certain points when I have my different opinion. It is not ingratitude as @rambabu said. I am a mother of a teenage boy and I always ask him to learn about these great personalities irrespective of any bias attitude. Discussion can take place on any ground because we have our own opinion regarding a subject and that is not character analysis. I am certain that in every generation these patriots will be remembered with respect.

I think it's always good to respect others view when it is not derogatory. Everyone cannot be of the same opinion.

Definitely. I agree with you. Discussions forums enable the member to express his opinion in a free will. I honor every member's opinion, of course while expressing my own opinion. This adds more respect to the forums.

Lopamudra wrote:

I feel we should be respectful towards all our great leaders and remember their contributions. It was a long struggle following which India attained freedom. Be it Gandhiji or Netaji, they did what they thought best for the country. We should acknowledge that and remember only that. Our children learn what we teach them. If we do character analyzing in our minds, our teaching to our next generation is influenced and they, after all these years of independence would, know very little about the real contributions of the great leaders.

In a discussion , it is but natural that all aspects both positive and negative gets highlighted about the topic or person concerned. We cannot make exceptions just because someone was a great leader. In fact bringing out other unknown aspects even if they seem negative to some , make them more human . It is better to be frank and open rather than hide facts, the younger generations have much more access to information than we ever had. If interested they would get all the information they want on the net..

One opinion leads to another. And they in turn take multiple turns and twists. If Mahatma Gandhi's ideals are positive to one member. The same will be viewed in another angle by another member.

It's to be remembered both the opinions of the members. . And both are to be respected.

@ Shampa, you took it as a personal attack, it was not. Sorry if you felt otherwise. It was a general statement after reading all the posts. I feel, again my personal opinion, the great leaders should be remembered for their contributions rather than their personal lives.

@ Usha, I agree that a discussion does lead to all angles of the person concerned and the gen next is far more exposed to every type of information but when it comes to these great personalities their positives overshadow the negatives and that's the way it should be. We have read some kind of negative about all great personalities be it Gandhi ji, Nehru, Netaji Bose or even Rabindranath Tagore for that matter. They are world famous figures and respected worldwide . By bringing forward the negative points (which is mostly done by media and we ,the believers, carry it forward) we somehow taint the image of our own leaders not only in front of the youngsters but also for the people from other countries.

As it was said in my earlier posts, discussions take multiple turns with every member's new opinion. There is nothing wrong in that. It's rather more beneficial to the forums as the members will have an opportunity to know different angles of the same subject. Accepting and honoring each member's opinion and point of view opens the flood gates to new information.

@Lopamudra I have not taken it as a personal attack but yes, I felt that highlighting something negative about a public figure is considered as a negative approach to the discussion. That's totally unfair. In my very fist or second comment on this thread I highlighted Gandhiji's practise of Brahmacharya cannot be considered as a simple way of living. Why should we blame the media for everything? We can find in biographies of Gandhiji about the method he used for practising Brahmacharya. It was a ridiculous practise. We talk about Gandhiji but, have we ever thought about those teenage girls what they went through? Do you think, our next generation will not come to know about it and won't like to discuss? They may directly question our opinion about these men and then we will have nothing to justify. We talk about celebrities' character irrespective of their contribution in their field so what's wrong in talking about these patriots? No body is denying their contribution to the motherland but for it we should seal our mouths even if they had some wrong practices. Sorry, I don't believe in flattery.

@ Shampa, everyone is entitled to their opinion. You believe there is no harm in highlighting negative points of a great leader, I believe we should ignore what is not important (in my opinion it is not important). .You may choose to discuss his practice of Bramhacharya while I wish more weightage is given to Dandi March , non-cooperation movement and the likes .. It's as simple as that. It is not flattery, it is what you choose to discuss. Like you, I'm entitled to my opinion !!

We have discussed various aspects about Mahatama Gandhi's food habits and also other aspects of his life. We may not agree to all his views but there is no doubt that he was great leader of our times. He is rightly calledFatherof Ntion.  

Well said sir. Irrespective of Mahatma Gandhi's personal principles or life style, one should see what service he has done to the Nation. He is rightly referred ad Father of the Nation.

rambabu wrote:

anil wrote:

rambabu wrote:

Suitability is something connected with personal likes and choices. Since The life style and food Mahatma Gandhi ate suited him he has preferred simple food. Mahatma Gandhi stresses not only  on simplicity but also in setting an example himself by following his principles. Hence the lesson is, though not like Mahatma Gandhi one can stick to simplicity as much as possible within his means.

Mahatma Gandhi was fen of natural therapy. Diet therapy is essential part of natural therapy. It may be reason he like simple food and raw food. One should be eat one half their meal as raw food. 

All Mahatma Gandhi's beliefs and practices are as simple as Mahatma. They are not only simple but inexpensive too/

Yes I read some where that his got were fed apples.