The document discusses Salman Rushdie's critique of Richard Attenborough's film "Gandhi". It summarizes Rushdie's arguments that the film appeals to Western audiences for three reasons: 1) it portrays India as spiritual and mystical, 2) it depicts Gandhi as a leader of poverty and simplicity sacrificed for ideals, and 3) it suggests revolutions can be non-violent. It also notes debate around omissions in the film but says it aims to be a biography, not political history. In conclusion, it argues the film's opulent form overwhelms and crushes the ascetic man, Gandhi, at its center.

1. Attenborough’s Gandhi by Salman Rushdi Prepared By, Makwana Jayshri, Roll no. – 14 M.A. Sem.III E-C – 305 Department of English, Bhavnagar University

2. Why should an Englishman want to deify ‘Gandhi’? The writer gives three broad heading:- First, the exotic impulse, the wish to see India as the fountainhead of spiritual – mystical wisdom. second, there is what might be termed the Christian longing, for a ‘Leader’ dedicated to ideals of poverty and simplicity, a man who is too good for this world and is therefore sacrificed on the altars of history. third, there is the liberal conservative political desire to hear it said that revolutions can, and should, be made purely by submission, and self – sacrifice, and non – violence alone.

3. Much of the debate about the film has concerned omissions: why no Subhas Bose? Why no tagore? The film is a biography, not a political Work. Nehru and gandhi Conclusion:- What it is, is an incredibly expensive movie about a man who was dedicated to the small scale and to asceticism. The form of the, film, opulent, lavish, overpowers and finally crushes the man at its centre .

4. Thank you