Woman and Goddess in Hinduism

by Tracy Pintchman

  G a nd h i wa s wel l awa re of t he not ion, por t rayed by exa mples of t r a-ditional women, that women lose their individuality after marriage. Once he was asked: “Does not the wife have an individuality too?” Gandhi replied: “Damayanti had it, M irabai showed that she too had. The dharma of a married couple is not an easy one. The children of a suppressed woman would also be likewise suppressed” (CWMG 32: 330). According to him, brave, fearless, independent women were of paramount importance for the well-being of society.

  Third, Gandhi realized that many educated women looked to Western models of freedom and equality. In his construction of an ideal for women, many Western women undoubtedly inspired him. However, much in Western ideals did not appeal to him. He differentiated modern civilization from India’s traditional culture: “Modern civilization is chiefly materialistic, as ours is chiefly spiritual . . . Our civilization tells us with daring certainty that a proper and perfect cultivation of the quality of ahimsa which, in its active form means purest love and pity, brings the whole world to our feet” (CWMG 15: 205). Gandhi believed in the unique values of Indian traditions and civilization and hoped that the female custodians of the culture would protect them. He therefore aspired to create a model for femininity based on indigenous values and paradigms, which for him were embodied by women such as St, Draupad, Damayanti, and Svitr, re-envisioned through the lens of emancipation. “Women are special custodians of all that is pure and religious in life,” argued Gandhi (CWMG 60: 145). Although Western models of economic and social freedom promised women equality, Gandhi warned Indian women against following Western manners:

  [Women] may not ape the manner of the West which may be suited to its environment. They must apply methods suited to the Indian genius and Indian environment. Theirs must be the strong, controlling, purifying, steadying hand, conserving what is best in our culture and unhesitatingly rejecting what is base and degrading. This is the work of Sitas, Draupadis, Savitris and Damayantis, not of amazons and prudes. (CWMG 47: 264)

  This viewpoint caused some of Gandhi’s contemporary followers, as well as modern scholars, to accuse him of reverting back to archaic ways. Sujata Patel (1988: 386) notes that Gandhi “used essentialist arguments to reaffirm her [woman’s] place as mother and wife in the household . . . [and] emphasized her distinct social role by glorifying some of her ‘feminine’ qualities.” However, Gandhi’s vision was motivated by the ideal of a harmonious society founded on the values of a re-envisioned Hindu dharma, where women played an important role.

  Fourth, for Gandhi, select mythical models held the key to women’s autonomy and freedom. As he noted, “Who says that woman is dependent on others? The Shastras say nothing of the sort. Sita was Rama’s better half and enjoyed empire over his heart. Neither was Damayanti dependent. Who will say, after reading the Mahabharata, that Draupadi was dependent on others?” (CWMG 31: 338). He used these stories to demonstrate that the powers of virtue and endurance are far superior to brute strength and inextricably connected to his vision of svarj and the methods of satygraha to achieve it. He often cited the example of St, popular among women of India:

  [The] protection of her virtues did not need the assistance of Rama . . . And if you will but recognize the power that resides in your breast it is open to you by force of your purity, love and spirit of sacrifice to bend the haughty spirit of your men and shame them into forsaking the life of vice and debauchery. (Qtd in Joshi, 1988: 175)

  Gandhi emphasized that India’s women must realize their autonomy and play an active role in securing their own rights of dignity, equality, and respect. Rather than depend on judicial systems or on men to bestow rights upon them, women themselves must defy male hegemony. He stated: “My experience has confirmed me in the view that real advancement of women can come only by and through their own efforts” (CWMG 85: 94).

  Finally, in mobilizing the masses, Gandhi drew upon the well-known narratives of Svitr, Prahld, St, Harishcandra, and other legendary figures (female and male) whose strength of sacrifice, restraint, and moral observances changed the course of their lives. Gandhi used these stories to convey a message to orthodox Hindu men who considered women to be inferior and only able to play supporting roles for their men. In 1926, Gandhi argued: “But for Sita no one would know Rama. No one would have heard the name of Satyavan if there had been no Savitri. The Pandavas would have remained unknown if there had been no Draupadi” (CWMG 34: 339). Through these stories, Gandhi not only affirmed the equality of men and women but also went even further to assert women’s superiority.

  Many of Gandhi’s orthodox Hindu critics called upon the examples of the same mythical women to oppose Gandhi’s position on widow remarriage, purdah, and male superiority. Gandhi often quoted letters in which the male correspondents invoked the devotion of St, Svitr, and Damayanti to their husbands to oppose his views on women’s autonomy and equal rights. Gandhi in reply quoted the mandate found in scriptures: “A wife is never to be considered her husband’s slave . . . She has a right to same freedoms which the husband wants for himself . . . The culture in which women are not honored is d o o m e d . . . H in d u c u lt u r e h a s a lw a y s r e s p e c t e d w o m a n” (CWMG 46: 367 ). By quot i ng t he t rad it ion, G a nd h i s oug ht to ma ke t he se men see that their selective thinking had unfairly subjugated women.

  In summary, Gandhi revered the traditional ideals of motherhood and feminine power but despised the brutal oppression of women, especially when mythical literature was used to rationalize it. He did not interpret traditional narratives literally but rather used them as literary devices to communicate his message of ideal womanhood to a people steeped in mythical traditions. Gandhi’s constant referral to these legendary women and his hybrid vision of femininity led some contemporary feminist scholars to argue that his movement failed to challenge the institution of patriarchy and that his vocabulary “reveals the bias of a benevolent patriarchy,” as Kishwar (1985) puts it. Nevertheless, she also admits that Gandhi supported many women political leaders. She states: “He is one of those few leaders whose practice was at times far ahead of his theory and his stated ideas” (60). This is evident in an extraordinarily progressive turn in Gandhi’s vision about women toward the end of his life. In 1947, during a speech at a prayer meeting, Gandhi read questions and responded to some of them:

  [Someone asked]: “Who will be the President of the India Republic? Will it be some Englishman, and if it is not to be an Englishman then should we not have Jawaharlal Nehru? For he is a highly educated man, can speak English and French and has large experience of foreign countries.” My answer is that if I have my way the President of the Indian Republic will be a chaste and brave Bhangi [untouchable] girl. If an English girl of 17 could become the British Queen and later even Empress of India, there is no reason why a Bhangi girl of robust love of her people and unimpeachable integrity of character should not become the first President of the Indian Republic . . . I shall make Jawaharlal, Sardar Patel and Rajendra Babu her ministers and therefore her servants. (CWMG 95: 347–348)

  This statement highlights his complex vision of ideal womanhood, which combined the virtues of ser vice, compassion, and sacrif ice with bravery, fearlessness, and assertiveness. Scholars note the paradox: on the one hand, he asked women to “cast off . . . timidity and become brave and courageous,” yet on the other hand, he advised men to “cultivate the gentleness and the discrimination of woman” (Terchek, 2000: 67). Nevertheless, Gandhi seems consistent in his effort to blur the boundaries between masculine and feminine qualities and modes of action in order to bring both males and females toward the realization of their full humanity.

  CONCLUSION

  Undoubtedly, Gandhi’s use of traditional models of feminine principles and virtues with which to express his vision of the free, powerful, autonomous, yet self-sacrificing woman can cause ambivalence and suspicion, especially since traditional motifs have often been used to justify women’s subordination. Gandhi’s pragmatic indige
nous feminist hermeneutics, his “femininization” of India’s independence movement, and his efforts to address the issues of women, while progressive in thought, appear inconsistent at times and ambivalent with regard to his construction of the ideal of femininity. However, a consistent thread emerges: Gandhi deployed a reconstructive hermeneu-tics derived from the cultural traditions of Hindu thought for the purpose of redirecting traditional ideals, methods, symbols, and values toward the goals of social and political emancipation. He sought to incite the religious imagination of women to once again claim their freedom and call on their inherent strength to create a new sphere that would intersect the boundaries of public and domestic domains. This is apparent in his decision to appoint Sarojini Naidu (poet and freedom fighter) as the first woman president of the Indian National Congress in the year 1924 when Indian women were still primarily confined to domestic roles. Naidu’s inaugural address crystallizes Gandhi’s vision of the ideal feminine:

  I, who have rocked the cradle . . . I, who have sung soft lullabies . . . I the emblem of Mother India, am now to kindle the flame of liberty . . . In electing me chief among you, through a period fraught with grave issues and fateful decisions, you have reverted to an old tradition and restore to Indian women the classic epoch of our country’s history. (Qtd in Morton, 1953:159; ellipses in original)

  Naidu’s words and her election epitomize Gandhi’s notion of renewal of ancient feminine ideals in a new context—the emergence of the female as a power in the public sphere.

  Gandhi’s hermeneutics, embedded in Hindu traditions and informed by his experiences with Western ideas of female freedom and equality, coalesced in a path that was intended to lead Hindu women to be their own saviors. “Man has ill-treated woman and is still doing so. But the remedy for this ultimately lies in woman’s hand,” emphasized Gandhi (qtd in Joshi, 1988: 241). He did not lead them to any “alternative messiahs”4 or even new legal protections, but employed, instead, a pragmatic strategy of eliciting the potential latent in the inner resources of their own traditions. This analysis of Gandhi’s indigenous feminist hermeneutics can serve as a starting point for future research that analyzes the paradoxes inherent in various mythologies and traditional interpretations, and Gandhi’s model may reveal the potential within these traditions to empower people to address a host of issues—including gender, race, caste, class, environment, economy.

  Notes

  1. For example of scholars who have discussed Gandhi’s complicated vision of the feminine and gender, see Hardiman, 2003; Katrak, 1992; Kishwar, 1986; and Lal, 2008. Evidently, many studies result from Gandhi’s paradoxical attitudes toward the feminine and also are informed by Western narratives and notions of the feminine—including womanhood, gender, and sexuality. Various Indian and Western scholars alike use interpretive approaches that are heavily influenced by psychoanalysis, politics, anthropology, and secularism. For example: Alter, 1994; Erikson, 1969; Kakar, 1989; and Mehta, 1976.

  2. Steger (2000: 125) uses the title “Feminizing the Nation” when he introduces his discussion of the complex attitudes toward women.

  3. Traditionally, sexual control was a female prerogative too, as widows purified themselves through chastity and women were expected to be chaste prior to marriage. However, women’s sexual control was imposed or expected, and they were not valorized for it.

  4. Sujata Patel (1988: 386) writes: “It has been argued that that the essentialism that guides his [Gandhi’s] perspective is something that the contemporary women’s movement has to understand and guard against in their search for alternative messiahs in their struggle against exploitation and oppression.” Gandhi wrote in a 1945 letter: “Woman is not helpless . . . She should not, therefore, beg for any man’s mercy, nor depend on him” (qtd in Joshi, 1988: 332).

  REFERENCES

  A lter, Joseph. 1994. “Celibacy, Sexuality, and the Transformation of Gender into Nationalism in North India.” Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 53, no. 1, 45–66.

  ———. 2000. Gandhi’s Body: Sex, Diet, and the Politics of Nationalism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

  Ashe, Geoffrey. 1968. Gandhi. New York: Stein and Day.

  Derné, Steve. 2000. “Men’s Sexuality and Women’s Subordination.” In Gender Ironies of Nationalism: Sexing the Nation, ed. Meyer Tamar, 237– 262. London and New York: Routledge.

  Dumont, Louis. 1970. Religion, Politics and History in India: Collected Papers in Indian Sociology. The Hague: Mouton.

  Dutt, M. N., trans. 1994. Mahbhrata. Vol . 6 : nti Parva. Delhi: Parimal Publications.

  Erikson, Erik H. 1969. Gandhi’s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

  Gandhi, M. K. 1958–1994. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. CD-ROM; 98 vols. Delhi: Publications Division Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

  Gier, Nicholas F. 2008. “Nonviolence as a Civic Virtue: Gandhi and Reformed Liberalism.” In Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Douglas Allen, 121–142. Lanham: Lexington.

  Hardiman, David. 2003. Gandhi in His Time and Ours: The Global Legacy of His Ideas. New York: Columbia University Press.

  J o s h i , P u s h p a , e d . 1 9 8 8 . Gandhi on Women (Collection of Mahatma Gandhi’s Writings and Speeches on Women). Ahmedabad: Navjivan Publishing House; and New Delhi: Center for Women’s Development Studies.

  Kakar, Sudhir. 1989. Intimate Relations: Exploring Indian Sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  Katrak, H. Ketu. 1992. “Indian Nationalism, Gandhian ‘Satyagraha’ and Representations of Female Sexuality.” In Nationalisms and Sexualities, ed. Andrew Parker et al., 395–406. New York: Routledge.

  Kishwar, Madhu. 1986. “Gandhi on Women.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 20, no. 40, 1691–1702.

  Kumar, Girja. 2006. Brahmacharya: Gandhi and His Women Associates. New Delhi: Vitasta Publishing.

  Lal, Vinay. 2008. “Gandhi Everyone Loves to Hate.” Economic and Political Weekly (October 4), 55–64. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia /History/Gandhi/GandhLoveToHate. March 16, 2010.

  Mehta, Ved. 1976. Mahatma Gandhi and His Apostles. New York: Penguin Books.

  Morton, Eleanor. 1953. The Women in Gandhi’s Life. New York: Dodd, Mead.

  Narayan, Kirin. 1989. Storytellers, Saints, and Scoundrels: Folk Narrative in Hindu Religious Teaching. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

  Patel, Sujata. 198 8. “C on st r uc t ion a nd R e con st r uc t ion of Woma n in G a nd h i.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, no. 8 (February), 377–387.

  Steger, Manfred B. 2000. Gandhi’s Dilemma: Nonviolent Principles and Nationalist Power. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

  Taneja, A nup. 2005. Gandhi, Women, and the National Movement, 1920–47. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications.

  Terchek, Ronald. 2000. Gandhi: Struggling for Autonomy. New Delhi: Vitasta Publications.

  Conclusion:

  Reimagining the Hindu Feminine

  Tracy Pintchman

  As is suggested by the subtitle of this book, the enterprise in which all the contributors to this volume are engaged involves reinterpreting and re-envisioning the feminine in Hindu religious environments. All of the essays in this book are faithful to traditional Hindu categories, texts, and ways of thinking, especially ways of thinking about what constitutes the feminine in Hindu contexts, but all see within the materials they examine possibilities for revision in ways that are in general affirming of values associated with female gender and, in particular, potentially or actually empowering to contemporary women. In her introduction, Rita D. Sherma articulates a shared methodological basis that supports this process and involves two key elements: intersubjective construction and dialexis. Intersubjective construction, as Sherma proposes it, refers to a particular type of interpretive approach, one in which a scholar engages the materials he or she is exploring in a way that both takes seriously the points of view of “others” being studied and seeks t
o integrate those points of view into his or her own constructive thought. Dialexis is a process of reflection “across styles” that prizes engagement with divergent cultural modes of communication and aims to unpack the meaning of such communications in a way that is contextualized and respects their integrity. Dialexis is central to the hermeneutics of intersubjectivity as Sherma describes it. The grounding of all the book’s chapters in this methodology reflects a shared desire to engage Hindu materials in ways that are consonant with conventional Hindu frames of understanding yet align themselves with impulses and goals that we might deem to be explicitly and self-consciously centered on the feminine. In this regard, Laurie Patton’s discussion in this volume of the flexibility of artha (purpose or goal) in Mms; despite the fixity of the text becomes relevant to this project as a whole, although I am applying her idea in this case in a less technical and more broad-ranging way than she intends.

  My task in this brief concluding chapter is to ponder what we might learn by reading these essays in conjunction with one another and through the lens of an intersubjective, dialectical hermeneutic rather than reading them separately and without this distinct form of hermeneutical framing. What, if anything, unites us, and perhaps divides us, in rereading and reinterpreting Hindu traditions with an eye toward a shared project, as Sherma articulates it in her introduction to this volume, of “exploring the relevance of Hindu understandings of the Feminine to theological concerns or contemporary forms of gender activism”? What patterns emerge, and what larger issues might these essays raise about future possibilities for a collective, constructive Hindu theology of the feminine, as it were? I draw here on Karen Pechilis’s observation that “the integrity of [academic] exploration is in the finding of points of connection and points of disagreement, not sameness” (p. 113 in this volume). My main goal here is to explore wherein these points might lie.