The celibate Gandhi is as much a conundrum as any other Gandhi we have known.
A celibate for the greater part of his life, Mahatma Gandhi continues to attract nearly unrivaled attention — often for the sex that did not take place. Even his friends and admirers, who revered him for bringing ethics to the political life, or for never demanding of others what he did not first demand of himself, were quite certain that Gandhi was unable to comprehend that a woman and a man might enjoy a perfectly healthy sexual relationship with each other.
Jawaharlal Nehru, seldom critical of the personal life of his political mentor, was convinced that Gandhi harbored an “unnatural” suspicion of the sexual life. And he deplored, as did many others, Gandhi’s strongly held view that sexual intercourse, other than for purposes of procreation, had no place in civilized life — not even among married couples. Marxists have long subscribed to the view that Gandhi was a “romantic,” a hopeless idealist and even a hypocrite; to this a chorus of voices added the thought that Gandhi was an insufferable “puritan.”
A Perfect Satyagrahi
Gandhi’s discomfort with the sexual life, according to one widely accepted strand of thought, commenced when his father passed away shortly after his marriage to Kasturba. Though the young Gandhi liked to nurse his ailing father, one evening he was unable to contain his urge to share a night of ribaldry with his young wife. He had just withdrawn to the bedroom when a knock on the door announced that his father had passed away.
Gandhi was, it has been argued, never able to forgive himself his transgression, and became determined to master his sexual drive. A more complex narrative links his renunciation of sex to his firm conviction, first developed during the heat of a campaign of nonviolent resistance to oppression in South Africa, that it compromised his ability to be a perfect satyagrahi.
Many commentators have pointed to his failure to consult with Kasturba before he took a vow of celibacy at the age of 37 as a sign of his cruelty and tendency to be self-serving.
“Dirty Old Man”
One British reviewer of Joseph Lelyveld’s new biography of Mahatma Gandhi, however, had much more than this in mind when he characterized him as a “sexual weirdo.” In his 70s, at the sunset of his life, Gandhi embarked on a new set of sexual experiments in which several women partook, among them Manu and Abha, his “two walking sticks” and Sushila Nayar, his personal physician and sister of his secretary, Pyarelal.
In the midst of raging communal violence, which Gandhi characteristically attributed to his own personal shortcomings, he decided to test his resolve: by going to bed naked with one or the other of the women. His detractors have ever since had a field day. Though no one has ever suggested that Gandhi made improper advances, or that the encounter was in the remotest manner sexual, the mask is supposed to have come off the “dirty old man.”
Few of his critics are aware that after such experiments came to a halt, Manu penned a remarkable little book titled, Bapu, My Mother; or that Sushila Nayar, furnishing an account of these experiments in brahmacharya several years after Gandhi’s death stated that, far from experiencing any sexual desire, she felt as though she was sharing the bed with her mother.
The celibate Gandhi is as much a conundrum as any other Gandhi we have known. Though the principal architect of the Indian independence struggle, he had much less invested in the idea of the nation-state than any other nationalist. He was a radical democrat, but one detects a streak of authoritarianism in his political conduct. Similarly, while declaring himself a bhakta of Tulsidas, he never doubted that passages in the Ramacharitmanas that were repugnant to one’s moral conscience were to be rejected.
The vow of brahmacharya did not preclude, as it has for reformers and saints in Indian religious traditions, the company of women. Indeed, Gandhi adored their presence and reveled in their touch. He was constantly surrounded by women, and for decades Mirabehn, the daughter of an English admiral who was mesmerized by Gandhi, was privy to his innermost thoughts to such an extent as to arouse jealousy within Kasturba.
Their correspondence has a touch of the erotic; and, Mirabehn, in particular, would write of her longing for Gandhi when he was away. She was by no means the only woman with whom Gandhi enjoyed a platonic relationship: There was an intense exchange of “love letters” over many years between him and Esther Faering, a Danish missionary, and Saraladevi Chowdharani was cast as his “spiritual wife.”
Many of his male friendships are equally interesting. For example, he may also have been attracted to Hermann Kallenbach, a wealthy Jewish architect who would become one of Gandhi’s earliest patrons and closest friends. Kallenbach, a bodybuilder and athlete, may have been the embodiment of masculinity, but Gandhi saw his soft side and his gift for nonviolence.
Experiments with Truth
We are not likely to understand these friendships, which should also make us aware of Gandhi’s singular disinterest in the traditional concept of the family, if we fail to make a distinction between sex and sexuality and see through to the core of his thoughts on masculinity and femininity.
Though Gandhi repudiated sex, which he saw as a finite game — finite in that its end seemed to be mere physical consummation — he was a consummate player of sexuality who delighted in the infinite pleasures of touch, companionship and the eroticism of longing and withdrawal.
More so than any other Indian political figure of his time, Gandhi made very little distinction between men and women. This will appear to be a brazen statement to those who have read his unequivocally clear pronouncements on the distinct duties of women and men, and the spheres they ought ideally to occupy in life.
In practice, however, he fundamentally treated them as alike, endeavoring also to bring out something of the feminine in men and something of the masculine in women. It is wholly characteristic of Gandhi, a relentless advocate of experiments with truth, that even if he appeared to work with a crude conception of what it means to be male or female, his entire life can be read as an attempt to bring us to a new threshold of understanding the notions of masculinity and femininity.
*[This article was originally published on the author’s blog, Lal Salaam.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
Photo Credit: Ben Sutherland / Nagarjun Kandukuru / Flickr
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a sponsor.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.