This, of course, seemingly contradicts Gandhi’s earlier emphasis on women’s confinement to domestic duties, some of which prompted Madhu Kishwar (1986: 56) to conclude, “For Gandhi, equality of sexes did not mean equality of occupations nor did it mean equality in the realm of work and power.” This apparently contradictory approach may simply represent an evolution in Gandhi’s own ideology. Alternatively, I argue it may be that Gandhi himself was trying to endow the conventional lives of ordinary women with dignity by highlighting the value and importance of women’s traditional work, while rejecting unjust and oppressive treatment of women. On the one hand, Gandhi argued for women’s natural disposition toward these virtues and self-restraint and asked them to awaken their own inherent power to confront male hegemony. At the same time, he invoked the feminine power of restraint to generate life in the abeyant soul of India: “India is today nothing but a dead mass movable at the will of another. Let her become alive by self-purification, i.e., self-restraint and self-denial, and she will be a boon to herself and mankind” (CWMG 24: 162). Gandhi’s embrace of “femininized” virtues was a strategy that was essential to his vision of free India, defined by the moral principles of service and self-sacrifice.
HERMENEUTICS OF CELIBACY
Feminizing Celibacy for Addressing Issues of Gender and Sexuality
Various scholars have examined Gandhi’s practice of celibacy (brah-macaryà) in order to explore his views of women, gender, and sexuality. However, the question of how, specifically, Gandhi used celibacy to challenge stereotypes regarding women has been essentially overlooked. The term brahmacarya is frequently translated as “celibacy,” but traditionally it also implies comprehensive control of the senses and contains nuanced religious and social meanings. Gandhi’s writings reveal that his practice of brahmacarya is inextricably intertwined with his concern for public service and, specifically, his concern for the issues of women.
During the nationalist struggle, many male Indian reformers linked celibacy with the nationalist cause of independence and social reform. Steve Derné (2000: 237) observes, “Asserting control over one’s own body as a way of rejecting the alien forces of colonialism, secularism and modernity has been an important component of men’s nationalism in India.” Gandhi also considered the practice of celibacy to be essential to the attainment of Indian self-rule, and his celibacy has been viewed within this framework of a deliberate rejection of alien forces, including secularism and modernization. The problem is, as Derné notes, that “a politics of celibacy and a politics of sexual potency have both provided nationalist Indian men with a feeling of power by emphasizing sexual control of Indian women” (ibid.). Derné thus draws a connection between male sexual potency and sexual management of Indian women. If we analyze Gandhi’s version of celibacy against the backdrop of Derné’s argument, it is notable that Gandhi, unlike other nationalists, used brahmacarya practice to imbue himself with a moral authority that enabled him to challenge gender inequality and misogynist tendencies present in Indian culture.
Gandhi was not a typical renouncer (who leaves behind this-worldly aspirations), but he sought through his celibacy and other ascetic practices to acquire clarity of mind and psychosomatic powers, and to pract ice detachment and discipline, goals embedded in the traditional and mythic connotations of brahmacarya. Simultaneously, he used the traditional power of a renouncer to defy hegemonic attitudes regarding gender. By opening a public discourse on his celibacy, Gandhi created a forum for discussing feminine and sexual issues otherwise considered taboo in a traditional setting. This apparent contradiction between his practice and that of traditional ascetics, who generally maintain silence about gender issues, caused his closest followers to criticize his modes of practice as being affected by “ Wester n i n f luence s” (K u m a r, 20 0 6: 13). I wou ld aver i n stead t hat he was “ready to challenge taboos” (ibid.), not by deviat ing from the trad it ion, but t h rough t he t rad it iona l per forma nce of a n a scet ic refor mer who reinterprets Hindu traditions, myths, and symbols toward non-traditional ends.
Undoubtedly, Gandhi’s theory and unconventional practice of celibacy as they relate to feminine issues are controversial (as has been noted by va r ious biog raphers a nd G and hia n scholars). But t hey g reat ly influence his understanding of Hindu womanhood. Reflecting upon Gandhi’s use of feminine symbols and methods (such as spinning, nonviolence, resistance), scholars term his endeavors as “feminizing the nation” and “feminizing the [Independence] movement,” but I argue that he also sought to feminize celibacy—traditionally described in male sexual terms and valorized mainly in men.3 Even though Gandhi often used the vocabulary of semen control, his rendition of celibacy was distinctly different from the nationalists’ masculine discourse of dominance because it eschewed the muscular strength and dominance usually implied by male sexuality while simultaneously asserting the purportedly feminine concepts of self-sacrifice and nonaggression.
By virtue of his celibacy, as well as his demeanor, Gandhi sought to feminize himself so that women would feel safe in a platonic relationship with him, without the mutual fear of arousal or intimidation. Unlike traditional brahmacris who renounce all relations with women, Gandhi sought to become like a woman, psychologically, so that he could understand his wife and thereby other women fully: “I have mentally become a woman in order to steal into her [his wife, Kasturba’s] heart. I could not steal into my wife’s heart until I decided to treat her differently than I used to do, and so I restored to her all her rights by dispossessing myself of all my so-called rights as her husband” (CWMG 40: 413). Interestingly, through his celibacy Gandhi was seeking to free Kasturba and restore her autonomy.
Gandhi also ignored the advice of orthodox ascetic literature cautioning practitioners of brahmacarya, called brahmacris, to avoid the company of women. Traditionally, women have been considered a challenge to an ascetic life. For example, it is stated in the Mahbhrata: “One who has taken that [brahmacarya] vow should not speak with women” (Dutt, 1994, Vol. VI: 318). Gandhi, however, paid no attention to orthodox conventions and “made women his allies and coworkers” (Ashe, 1968: 183). Even as a brahmacri, Gandhi lived among women and did not hesitate to take personal services from them—even massages. This highly debated approach enabled him to confront the insidious stereotypes that segregate the public domain of males and females and construe women as temptresses. Within Hindu Indian culture the renouncer (sannysi) has the authority to serve as a catalyst for change for the purpose of alleviating social suffering, as has been noted by scholars and anthropologists (Dumont, 1970: 46; Narayan, 1989: 74–76).
Gandhi sought further to create a space in his monastery, or rama, where a woman could experience freedom. Traditionally, in the monastic setting, women are subjected to stricter rules and regulations, but women in Gandhi’s rama were not “subject to any restraint” that was not also imposed upon men. Gandhi himself stated, “A woman, as soon as she enters the Ashram, breathes the air of freedom and casts out all fear from her mind. And I believe that the Ashram observance of brahmacarya has made a big contribution to this state of things” (CWMG 56: 191). Geoffrey Ashe (1968: 180) describes the distinctive nature of Gandhi’s rama, which “was not like a monastery or convent, a house of celibates of the same sex. It i ncluded bot h, a nd it i nclude d m a r r ied couples.” T h is u n ique a rr a nge -ment was motivated and made possible by Gandhi’s deep conviction of the efficacy of brahmacarya for transcending gender constraints. He presented a model that was traditional in principle but progressive in nature.
Unlike traditional brahmacris, Gandhi discussed frankly the trials and troubles he experienced with his formidable vow of celibacy in marriage. Traditionally, intense renunciatory disciplines compel ascetics to seek solitude from day-to-day life; consequently, their inner struggles remain hidden from public scrutiny. But Gandhi spoke frequently of the relentless struggle and setbacks arising from his vow of brahmacarya. By exposing his own failings, Gandhi may have
been pointing to the infirmity of the male gender that had historically exhibited harsh attitudes toward women and often severely judged females for their moral transgressions. Gandhi put the burden of responsibility for these failings on the brahmacri himself and sought to change negative attitudes toward women. He writes: “A true brahmachari will have no imperfection in him, no pretension and no fear. If you are such a brahmachari, why need you be afraid to talk to women?” (CWMG 95: 390).
Gandhi offered a new interpretation of the ascetic prohibition against touching women. “It is not,” says he, “woman whose touch defiles man but he is often himself too impure to touch her” (CWMG 73: 319). By this rendering, Gandhi sought to liberate women from the charge of being temptresses by holding men accountable for their own projections of lust onto women. He strove to shake off the perception of women as an obstruction on men’s spiritual path by invoking the traditional image of the Divine Mother: “Woman for a brahmachari is not the ‘doorkeeper of hell’ but is an incarnation of our Mother who is in heaven” (CWMG 56: 165).
Moreover, Gandhi sought further to integrate the masculine power of semen control with virtues and vulnerabilities traditionally perceived as feminine in nature. Anthropologist Joseph Alter (1994: 61) presents a comprehensive account of the scholarship on “the Hindu concept of brahmacarya” and surveys twentieth-century literature on celibacy. He demonstrates that the use of the term brahmacarya is pr ima r i ly def i ned i n mas cu l i ne ter m s, a nd t hat i n t he ideolog y of nat ion-alism “the rhetoric of brahmacarya is aggressively male.” However, in his interface with femininity, Gandhi presented an image of the brahmacri that was directly opposed to this traditional, aggressive male model. Even though he declared that nonviolence requires “the spirit of manliness in its perfection,” he described his methods of self-sacrifice and suffering in feminine terms (CWMG 21: 515). Gandhi’s emphasis on the female virtues of self-sacrifice, tolerance, and austerities combined with his scrawny, half-naked body wrapped in a loincloth; his entourage of women associates of all ages; and his love for such “womanly” jobs as spinning, cleaning, and nursing allowed him to address female issues in a way no other Mahtm had been able to do.
G a nd h i a ls o refor mu lated t r ad it iona l rel ig iou s d i s cou r se about vo l-untary male celibacy to highlight its connection to not only virility, but also vulnerability. In so doing, Gandhi seems to have been initiating a new paradigm for understanding celibacy, one that could supplant the machismo espoused by the then current militant nationalist discourse on celibacy. He used feminine corporeal metaphors to convey the hard work entailed in the practice of brahmacarya, asserting, “A man striving for success in brahmacarya suffers pain as a woman does in labor” (qtd in Alter, 2000: 27). Perhaps by using such metaphors he was equating the efforts of celebrated renouncers with those women who go unnoticed by society despite their courage and suffering during childbirth and childrearing.
Gandhi’s predecessors, including social reformers such as Raja Rammohan Roy (1774–1833) and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar (1820–1891), crusaded against the misogynist customs of widow burning (sat), polygamy, and the prohibition against widow remarriage but did not aspire to make women autonomous. Gandhi did, impugning cultural norms that positioned women as subordinate to men. According to Ronald J. Terchek (2000: 67), “Gandhi does not call on ancient texts to validate his claims for the autonomous woman” but instead “proceeds as if autonomy was always a part of Hinduism and argues that . . . women must be included.” He also rejected any form of male imposition of chastity on women, suggesting instead that women practice celibacy as a means of rejecting male domination and the automatic control over their bodies legitimized by marriage.
W h at seem s c le a rly u nprec e dente d i s G a nd h i’s u nconvent iona l rendering of brahmacarya as an essential tool for addressing the needs and concerns of women, as well as for the purpose of liberating them from a collective inferiority complex caused by archaic cultural conventions. By defining brahmacarya in terms of comprehensive self-control and encouraging men and women equally to practice it, Gandhi sought to deploy toward progressive social ends this traditional religious practice.
THE METHODOLOGY OF USING
TRADITIONAL NARRATIVES TO ACHIEVE THE
GOAL OF WOMEN’S FREEDOM
Gandhi appropriated Hindu narratives to blend traditional models of ideal womanhood with modern ideals concerning women’s social freedom. Of pa rt icu lar interest i n t his rega rd is Gand hi’s use and rei n-terpretation of female mythical characters and stories for the purpose of securing women’s rights, seeking their empowerment, and constructing his vision of femininity.
Numerous scholars have drawn attention to Gandhi’s choice of mythical female characters during his discourse about women’s roles and his vision of the feminine. Madhu Kishwar (1986: 44), for example, notes: “Sita, Damayanti and Draupadi were the three ideals of Indian womanhood that Gandhi repeatedly invoked as inspirations for the downtrodden women of India.” However, Gandhi was not unique in this regard. Anup Taneja (2005: 29) problematizes this nostalgia for the “glorious Hindu past” of India in the minds of revolutionaries and reformers of nineteenth-century India, who also called upon these female mythical models as a way of asserting the “great spiritual potential” of women in order to advocate traditional gender roles but without any attendant commitment to tradition on their own part. Taneja observes, “What reformers were trying was merely to raise the position of women in the society and that too, within the framework of the patriarchal norms” (32). He provides a snapshot of the sentiments of select progressive women thinkers who criticized the “double standards followed by the social reformers.” Uma Nehru, one of the most “progressive feminists of the period” wrote: “The task of producing model women like Sita and Savitri seems incongruent with a social situation which does not oblige men to become a Ramchandra, a Krishna, a Bharat or a Yudhishter” (46). The social reformers attempted to evoke traditional female ideals and archety pes while indulging their own preference for Western lifestyles and language. The reformers were thus inhibited in their ability to identify with and communicate in an indigenous idiom to the vast majority of Indian Hindu women who inhabited a very different cultural world. Gandhi eschewed this disingenuous standard followed by some reformers and sought to challenge it by virtue of his own efforts to follow native methods and modes of living.
Even though Gandhi invoked the same examples as did other r e fo r m e r s , h is in t e r p r e t a t io n o f fe m a le m y t h ic a l m o d e ls is c o n s p ic u o u s ly different from his predecessors. Gandhi used traditional narratives not as historic tales to frame the female character, but rather as a hermeneutic to emphasize that the tradition of Hindu dharma holds resources for women’s equality and autonomy. For Gandhi, these narratives were repositories of profound wisdom and moral truth, and hence should continue to be retold and reinterpreted for various situations. Gandhi did not interpret these stories literally, nor did he follow a specific scholarly hermeneutical tradition. He developed his own hermeneutics to interpret the ancient legends. For him, they were neither historical nor fictional but were rather representative of the power of virtue. Therefore, he chose some stories and neglected others to suit his goal and message.
Gandhi’s hermeneutics served several purposes. First, he deliberately chose and reinterpreted mythical models and stories that had been used to subjugate women. He portrayed female characters not as docile or timid but as strong and fearless. Gandhi’s St, for example, was not a woman who was meek and stayed in purdah; instead, she was defiant and independent. According to Gandhi, women like St were autonomous and equal partners in private and public matters. Gandhi lamented that “in the present age, the women keep aloof from the things which really matter for the nation’s welfare and, hence, we get little help from them” (CWMG 21: 331). He described this as modern women’s deviation from tradition:
It was not so in ancient times. Sita set out for the
forest with Ramachandra and there was nothing he did of which she remained in ignorance. Draupadi, making herself a true partner in life, accompanied the Pandavas in their wanderings and, when her honour was threatened, she proved to the world that she had the strength to protect herself with soul-force. (Ibid.)
In one sense, women accompanying their husbands during times of privation are often seen as “standing by” their men. Yet Gandhi interprets this as a mark of will and self-determination to choose a difficult path, leaving the luxury of their homes behind for the challenges of following their callings, which modern Indian women may fruitfully emulate.
Second, Gandhi intended to communicate his vision to women from all walks of life—especially to rural women, who were often unaware of judicial laws regarding female rights. These women may have been illiterate, but they were familiar with the stories of St, Draupad, and others. They honored and worshipped these mythical women, who were often invoked to motivate women to follow the dharma of a dutiful wife under male control. Frequently, the stories were recounted in ways that supported and justified customs such as widow-burning, purdah, and absolute female submission to male hegemony. G a nd h i lo c ate d h is v ision of t he fem i n i ne w it h i n t he et ho s of these stories but reinterpreted them in order to challenge oppressive customs, thereby communicating to women, in an idiom with which they were familiar, their right to independence and dignity. The following tract evinces an example of this method, which is a response by Gandhi to a letter defending purdah as being a traditional Hindu custom: “I am of the opinion that the purdah in India is [a] recent institution and was adopted during the period of Hindu decline. In the age when proud Draupadi and spotless Sita lived there could be no purdah. Gargi could not have held her discourses from behind the purdah” (CWMG 38: 230). Here, Gandhi explicitly repudiates a common custom and challenges the view that it was historically embedded in the Hindu ethos.
Woman and Goddess in Hinduism Page 26