The Saraladevi episode, through which this book came to be initially identified, is only part of a larger and commendable exercise of portraying Gandhi, a man, rather than the Mahatma, in his manifold personality, confrontations and relationship, writes Rajiv Vora

With over 300 biographies of Mahatma Gandhi already available, an addition of one more is an unattractive and uncommercial proposition. Only about half-a-decade ago, Rajmohan Gandhi had added one to this rich corpus of biographies on Gandhi, The Good Boatman. Thus, to come up with one more and make its presence felt must be a challenging task for any author.

Before the book hit stands, Rajmohan Gandhi and his publisher ensured its sale. Sales needed to be ensured and the writer did it exceptionally well - just like a modern-day businessman who holds nothing sacred on the anvil of market.

Rajmohan picket up one episode of Mahatma's life - his relationship with Saraladevi Chaudharani - for pre-publication curtain-raiser. It was presented to the world in what could be called scandalising the life and relationship of the Mahatma, the man for whom nothing in the world, not even the weakness of his arch-adversary, was ever outside the realm of sacredness. Had Rajmohan understood this, he would not have resorted to scandalising what was sacred to the Mahatma.

The Saraladevi episode is not unknown to the readers of Mahatma Gandhi's Collected Works. A June 1920 letter from CR Rajagopalachari, which the author has got from his younger brother Gopal Gandhi's records, could very well have been presented by him while bringing up the same story, almost in a similar though less accurate fashion, in his half-decade old biography of the Mahatma, The Good Boatman.

Rajaji and Gandhi met for the first time in 1919. Between 1919 and 1922, the period of the Gandhi-Saraladevi relationship, does not contain much correspondence between Rajaji and Gandhi. Hardly any in the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi between 1919 and June 1920 suggest such a close relationship between the two at private level as it comes out from the letter of Rajaji which Rajmohan has brought out from family records (dated June 16, 1920). If the said letter is authentic, it should be made public. One does not find its reference even in the biography of Rajaji written by Rajmohan Gandhi in 1997. However, that does not make much difference since Mahatma's letter to Saraladevi describes their relationship as "spiritual" (Collected Works). Yet, Rajmohan casts doubt on Mahatma's explanation of his relationship by saying, "Whatever that have meant."

Rajmohan joins the genre of those Europeans and Americans who, right from 1930 - prior to the Round Table Conference - have tried to peep into Mahatma's relationship with women in order to taint his public image. It its sad that Rajmohan publicised his otherwise good work in such an unethical way.

The Saraladevi relationship, through which this biography came to be initially identified, is only part of a larger and commendable exercise of portraying Gandhi, a man, rather than the Mahatma, in his manifold personality, confrontations and relationship. In this regard, this book is different from The Good Boatman and unique in its chronological construction. The wealth of information and insight therein provides the reader with a multi-dimensional view of Gandhi.

Talking of relationships and Gandhi's face-off with the Empire, why the author has diluted his pen in bringing out one of the most turbulent of Gandhi's personal and political relationships, that with Jawaharlal Nehru, remains a serious question. It is incomprehensible that a scholar like Rajmohan should interpret Gandhi's strong reaction to the 1927 Independence of India Resolution passed at the behest of Nehru on rather a misleading account!

Rajmohan writes, "Gandhi, who was absent from discussion, was unimpressed. The Congress had not fought for sometime and didn't had the training and weapons to fight. In the situation, the resolution reminded Gandhi of 'prisoner in chain spitting frothy oaths only to provide mirth for their gaolers. Also, the resolution needlessly ruled out a possibly useful option... Dominion status can easily become more than independence, if we have the sanction to back it. Independence can easily become a farce, if it lacks sanction..."

In reality, however, Gandhi had observed, "Swaraj is a sacred word meaning self-rule and self-restraint, and not freedom from all restraints, which 'independence' often means." So, the root cause of Gandhi's opposition to the resolution was his rejection to the goal of independence, as against the Indian ideal of swaraj.

Differences between Nehru - representative of new Indian intelligentsia - and Gandhi, as we know, were fundamental; though it goes to the credit of Nehru that at time in his later life he accepted the folly of not following Gandhi's path in the country's reconstruction and development.

But here Rajmohan rejects Gandhi; for, rejection of Hind Swaraj is rejection of Gandhi, even if one worships Mahatma as a warrior and a strategist. Rajmohan writes, "Yet, Hind Swaraj was a warrior's manifesto... The unqualified denunciation of Western civilisation was also connected," according to the author, "to Gandhi's experience as an ignored leader from the East in England of 1909."

Hind Swaraj defines what is true civilisation and does not, as Rajmohan suggests, eulogise Indian civilisation. It teaches about the forms of physical, mental and spiritual violence to which the world has been subjected to by following godless reason of the West and reasonless god of the decadent religiosity to which the people have fallen.

If only Rajmohan had called his book "a story" instead of "a true story" it would have been reasonable. The final true story cannot be anything other than the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.

The book, extremely readable and lucid, brings a new light on the life of man whom authors and scholars like Rajmohan should keep on exploring unbiasedly.

(Published in Pioneer, March 25, 2007)