Gandhi in The Handmaid’s Tale

Gandhi was a carnal being, who instead of committing to self-improvement, decided to Band Aid his jealous boyfriend issues though religion, and also gaining some international fame as a result. He’s probably the only global figure who commands awe and respect dispite doing his own plumbing and not having sex for ages.

So if Gandhi, who voluntarily abstained from sex was a carnal being, what are you? A nymphomaniac?

Amazing... that lowly Jinnah creeps up again... when we are talking of GANDHI.

amansandhu...

That breaking ties bit is a bit too much... yes Jinnah stopped addressing Dina as Dina but addressed her as Ms Wadia but he played with his grand children and carried their pictures in his wallet... so that is hardly breaking ties...

But we do know that Gandhi, the great icon of humanity, the greatest man to walk the earth, not only broke off all his ties with his son for converting to Islam but threatened him with a lot... so much so that he had to publicly clarify his position for the Muslims... his clarification: I didn`t think my son converted sincerely

Harish Bhai

A stretch again... Jinnah was opposed to her decision... as Hindvi put it on another board probably for political reasons... but did Jinnah at any point stop her from marrying Neville?

I don`t see how you can argue this honestly. The fact that despite being quite powerful in those circles and all that... Jinnah did not make any effort to stop the wedding.

In comparison his own father-in-law had locked up Ruttie ...

It is sad that a discussion about Gandhi is being monopolised by the lowly Jinnah who believed in equal rights for women.

Re: # 63

Please read my long post again, I wont bother to explain that the double standards lie in your line of questioning, not mine. Indeed Gandhi`s fame is difficult to digest, just as Hitler featuring in the Times Magazine`s greatest men was a bother to many jews.

Jinnah never inhibited his daughter`s marriage to a Parsee, he infact himslef married a Parsee. This lie has been refuted by Dina Wadia on a number of occassions, but nothing will be enough for you Indians to rant away over the same old same old. This isn`t a crime against women in any way even if it was true.

Yas,

Let them compare the sexist man to Jinnah, let them try and get some pleasure out of keeping them at par for some moments, before Gandhi trips on his selective agendas.

Aisha Sawari

From the Autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi, 1928.

---

Chapter 4

PLAYING THE HUSBAND

About the time of my marriage, little pamphlets costing a pice, or a pie (I now forget how much), used to be issued, in which conjugal love, thrift, child marriages, and other such subjects were discussed. Whenever I came across any of these, I used to go through them cover to cover, and it was a habit with me to forget what I did not like, and to carry out in practice whatever I liked. Lifelong faithfulness to the wife, inculcated in these booklets as the duty of the husband, remained permanently imprinted on my heart. Furthermore, the passion for truth was innate in me, and to be false to her was therefore out of the question. And then there was very little chance of my being faithless at that tender age.

But the lesson of faithfulness had also untoward effect. `If I should be pledged to be faithful to my wife, she also should be pledged to be faithful to me,` I said to myself. The thought made me a jealous husband. Her duty was easily converted into my right to exact faithfulness from her, and if it had to be exacted, I should be watchfully tenacious of the right. I had absolutely no reason to suspect my wife`s fidelity, but jealousy does not wait for reasons. I must needs be for ever on the look-out regarding her movements, and therefore she could not go anywhere without my permission. This sowed the seeds of a bitter quarrel between us. The restraint was virtually a sort of imprisonment. And Kasturbai was not the girl to brook any such thing. She made it a point to go out whenever and wherever she liked. More restraint on my part resulted in more liberty being taken by her, and in my getting more and more cross. Refusal to speak to one another thus became the order of the day with us, married children. I think it was quite innocent of Kasturbai to have taken those liberties with my restrictions. How could a guileless girl brook any restraint on going to the temple or on going on visits to friends? If I had the right to impose restrictions on her, had not she also a similar right? All this is clear to me today. But at that time I had to make good my authority as a husband!

Let not the reader think, however, that ours was a life of unrelieved bitterness. For my severities were all based on love. I wanted to make my wife an ideal wife. My ambition was to make her live a pure life, learn what I learnt,and identify her life and thought with mine.

I do not know whether Kasturbai had any such ambition. She was illiterate. By nature she was simple, independent, persevering and, with me at least, reticent. She was not impatient of her ignorance and I do not recollect my studies having ever spurred her to go in for a similar adventure. I fancy, therefore, that my ambition was all one- sided. My passion was entirely centred on one woman, and I wanted it to be reciprocated. But even if there were no reciprocity, it could not be all unrelieved misery because there was active love on one side at least.

I must say I was passionately fond of her. Even at school I used to think of her, and the thought of nightfall and our subsequent meeting was ever haunting me. Separation was unbearable. I used to keep her awake till late in the night with my idle talk. If with this devouring passion there had not been in me a burning attachment to duty, I should either have fallen a prey to disease and premature death, or have sunk into a burdensome existence. But the appointed tasks had to be gone through every morning, and lying to anyone was out of the question. It was this last thing that saved me from many a pitfall.

I have already said that Kasturbai was illiterate. I was very anxious to teach her, but lustful love left me no time. For one thing the teaching had to be done against her will, and that too at night. I dared not meet her in the presence of the elders, much less talk to her. Kathiawad had then, and to a certain extent has even today, its own peculiar, useless and barbarous Purdah. Circumstances were thus unfavourable. I must therefore confess that most of my efforts to instruct Kasturbai in our youth were unsuccessful. And when I awoke from the sleep of lust, I had already launched forth into public life, which did not leave me much spare time. I failed likewise to instruct her through private tutors. As a result Kasturbai can now with difficulty write simple letters and understand simple Gujarati. I am sure that, had my love for her been absolutely untainted with lust, she would be a learned lady today; for I could than have conquered her dislike for studies. I know that nothing is impossible for pure love.
I have mentioned one circumstance that more or less saved me from the disasters of lustful love. There is another worth noting. Numerous examples have convinced me that God ultimately saves him whose motive is pure. Along with the cruel custom of child marriages, Hindu society has another custom which to a certain extent diminishes the evils of the former. Parents do not allow young couples to stay long. The child-wife spends more than half her time at her father`s place. Such was the case with us. That is to say, during the first five years of our married life (from the age of 13 to 18), we could not have lived together longer than an aggregate period of three years. We would hardly have spent six months together, when there would be a call to my wife from her parents. Such calls were very unwelcome in those days, But they saved us both. At the age of eighteen I went to England, and this meant a long and healthy spell of separation. Even after my return from England we hardly stayed together longer than six months. For I had to run up and down between Rajkot and Bombay. Then came the call from South Africa, and that found me already fairly free from the carnal appetite.

What patronising condescending attitude towards women... must have been hellhole for Kasturba...

Meanwhile poor Kasturba... her life could have been saved... but Gandhi refused to allow her modern medical treatment.

From the Autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi, 1928.

---

Chapter 7

A TRAGEDY (contd.)

…….
I abjured meat out of the purity of my desire not to lie to my parents, but I did not abjure the company of my friend. My zeal for reforming him had proved disastrous for me, and all the time I was completely unconscious of the fact.

The same company would have led me into faithlessness to my wife. But I was saved by the skin of my teeth. My friend once took me to a brothel. He sent me in with the necessary instructions. It was all prearranged. The bill had already been paid. I went into the jaws of sin, but God in His infinite mercy protected me against myself. I was almost struck blind and dumb in this den of vice. I sat near the woman on her bed, but I was tongue-tied. She naturally lost patience with me, and showed me the door, with abuses and insults. I then felt as though my manhood had been injured, and wished to sink into the ground for shame. But I have ever since given thanks to God for having saved me. I can recall four more similar incidents in my life, and in most of them my good fortune, rather than any effort on my part, saved me. From a strictly ethical point of view, all these occasions must be regarded as moral lapses; for the carnal desire was there, and it was as good as the act. But from the ordinary point of view, a man who is saved from physically committing sin is regarded as saved. And I was saved only in that sense. There are some actions from which an escape is a godsend both for the man who escapes and for those about him. Man, as soon as he gets back his consciousness of right, is thankful to the Divine mercy for the escape. As we know that a man often succumbs to temptation, however much he say resist it, we also know that Providence often intercedes and saves him in spite of himself. How all this happens,- how far a man is free and how far a creature of carcumstances,- how far free-will comes into play and where fate enters on the scene, all this is a mystery and will remain a mystery.

But to go on with the story. Even this was far from opening my eyes to the viciousness of my friend`s company. I therefore had many more bitter draughts in store for me, until my eyes were actually opened by an ocular demonstration of some of his lapses quite unexpected by me. But of them later, as we are proceeding chronologically.

One thing, however, I must mention now, as it pertains to the same period. One of the reasons of my differences with my wife was undoubtedly the company of this friend. I was both a devoted and a jealous husband, and this friend fanned the flame of my suspicions about my wife. I never could doubt his veracity. And I have never forgiven myself the violence of which I have been guilty in often having pained my wife by acting on his information. Perhaps only a Hindu wife would tolerate these hardships, and that is why I have regarded woman as an incarnation of tolerance. A servant wrongly suspected may throw up his job, a son in the same case may leave his father`s roof, and a friend may put an end to the friendship. The wife, if she suspects her husband, will keep quiet, but if the husband suspects her, she is ruined. Where is she to go? A Hindu wife may not seek divorce in a law-court. Law has no remedy for her. And I can never forget or forgive myself for a having driven my wife to that desperation.

The canker of suspicion was rooted out only when I understood Ahimsa in all its bearings. I saw then the glory of Brahmacharya and realized that the wife is not the husband`s bondslave, but his companion and his help-mate, and an equal partner in all his joy and sorrows - as free as the husband to choose her own path. Whenever I think of those dark days of doubts and suspicions. I am filled with loathing of my folly and my lustful cruelty, and I deplore my blind devotion to my friend.

I didn’t get a chance to read all of Aisha’s responses, but has her being Qadiyani being answered and settled? Is she or isn’t she? I have some questions about Ahmadiyat and feminist movement of the 60s.

Pathetic attempts by Beej to obfuscate. Nothing in his posts contradicts the views stated above.

But ... thankfuly MORE INFORMATION has emerged about Gandhi`s character inadvertently perhaps:

Gandhi was also a wife beater:

(From Beej`s post below)

One thing, however, I must mention now, as it pertains to the same period. One of the reasons of my differences with my wife was undoubtedly the company of this friend. I was both a devoted and a jealous husband, and this friend fanned the flame of my suspicions about my wife. I never could doubt his veracity. And I have never forgiven myself the violence of which I have been guilty in often having pained my wife by acting on his information. Perhaps only a Hindu wife would tolerate these hardships, and that is why I have regarded woman as an incarnation of tolerance. A servant wrongly suspected may throw up his job, a son in the same case may leave his father`s roof, and a friend may put an end to the friendship. The wife, if she suspects her husband, will keep quiet, but if the husband suspects her, she is ruined. Where is she to go? A Hindu wife may not seek divorce in a law-court. Law has no remedy for her. And I can never forget or forgive myself for a having driven my wife to that desperation.

One can never EXPOSE a person who has already exposed his SOUL to the world!

From the autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi, 1928.

---

Chapter 87

A SACRED RECOLLECTION AND PENANCE

A variety of incidents in my life have conspired to bring me in close contact with people of many creeds and many communities, and my experience with all of them warrants the statement that I have known no distinction between relatives and strangers, countrymen and foreigners, white and coloured, Hindus and Indians of other faiths, whether Musalmans, Parsis, Christians or Jews. I may say that my heart has been incapable of making any such distinctions. I cannot claim this as a special virtue, as it is in my very nature. rather than a result of any effort on my part, whereas in the case of ahimsa (non- violence), brahmacharya (celibacy), aparigraha (non-possession) and other cardinal virtues, I am fully conscious of a continuous striving for their cultivation.

When I was practising in Durban, my office clerks often stayed with me, and there were among them Hindus and Christians, or to describe them by their provinces, Gujaratis and Tamilians. I do not recollect having ever regarded them as anything but my kith and kin. I treated them as members of my family, and had unpleasantness with my wife if ever she stood in the way of my treating them as such. One of the clerks was a Christian, born of Panchama parents.

The house was built after the Western model and the rooms rightly had no outlets for dirty water. Each room had therefore chamber-pots. Rather than have these cleaned by a servant or a sweeper, my wife or I attended to them. The clerks who made themselves completely at home would naturally clean their own pots, but the Christian clerk was a newcomer, and it was our duty to attend to his bedroom. My wife managed the pots of the others, but to clean those used by one who had been a Panchama seemed to her to be the limit, and we fell out. She could not bear the pots being cleaned by me, neither did she like doing it herself. Even today I can recall the picture of her chiding me, her eyes red with anger, and pearl drops streaming down her cheeks, as she descended the ladder, pot in hand. But I was a cruelly kind husband. I regarded myself as her teacher, and so harassed her out of my blind love for her.

I was far from being satisfied by her merely carrying the pot. I would have her do it cheerfully. So I said, raising my voice: `I will not stand this nonsense in my house.`
The words pierced her like an arrow.

She shouted back: `Keep your house to yourself and let me go.` I forgot myself, and the spring of compassion dried up in me. I caught her by the hand, dragged the helpless woman to the gate, which was just opposite the ladder, and proceeded to open it with the intention of pushing her out. The tears were running down her cheeks in torrents, and she cried: `Have you no sense of shame? Must you so far forget yourself? Where am I to go? I have no parents or relatives here to harbour me. Being your wife, you think I must put up with your cuffs and kicks? For Heaven`s sake behave yourself, and shut the gate. Let us not be found making scenes like this!`

I put on a brave face, but was really ashamed and shut the gate. If my wife could not leave me, neither could I leave her. We have had numerous bickerings, but the end has always been peace between us. The wife, with her matchless powers of endurance, has always been the victor.

Today I am in a position to narrate the incident with some detachment, as it belongs to a period out of which I have fortunately emerged. I am no longer a blind, infatuated husband, I am no more my wife`s teacher. Kasturba can, if she will, be as unpleasant to me today, as I used to be to her before. We are tried friends, the one no longer regarding the other as the object of just. She has been a faithful nurse throughout my illnesses, serving without any thought of reward.

The incident in question occurred in 1898, when I had no conception of brahmacharya. It was a time when I thought that the wife was the object of her husband`s lust, born to do her husband`s behest, rather than a helpmate, a comrade and a partner in the husband`s joys and sorrows.

It was in the year 1900 that these ideas underwent a radical transformation, and in 1906 they took concrete shape. But of this I propose to speak in its proper place. Suffice it to say that with the gradual disappearance in me of the carnal appetite, my domestic life became and is becoming more and more peaceful, sweet and happy.

Let no one conclude from this narrative of a sacred recollection that we are by any means an ideal couple, or that there is a complete identity of ideals between us. Kasturba herself does not perhaps know whether she has any ideals independently of me. It is likely that many of my doings have not her approval even today. We never discuss them, I see no good in discussing them. For she was educated neither by her parents nor by me at the time when I ought to have done it. But she is blessed with one great quality to a very considerable degree, a quality which most Hindu wives possess in some measure. And it is this; willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, she has considered herself blessed in following in my footsteps, and has never stood in the way of my endeavour to lead a life of restraint. Though, therefore, there is a wide difference between us intellectually, I have always had the feeling that ours is a life of contentment, happiness and progress.

Re: # 74

So a man commits violence against his wife and gets away with it because he admitted it. That`s good justice. Hence the famous line from him ``an eye for an eye makes the world go blind.`` He thinks from a criminal`s prespective. Seems to me like this guy just didn`t get basic morality and philosohy and how a just society is created.

By this count, lets release our prisons and unleash the wife beaters and the abusive men, and lets take them on as heros.

Aisha Sarwari

Great Ayesa I am the one with double standards!!!!!!!!. I agree that Gandhi did not treat his wife as an equal and his views on women are regressive. Ok, now u do the same and also agree that Jinnah was the same with regards to his daughter. Regarding Dina either u are lying or the historians were lying.
And oh, so now you are comparing Gandhi to Hitler the man responsible for the biggest genocide in history.
I repeat what I said earlier that it is difficult for Pakistanis to accept that Gandhi is more popular than Jinnah.

Amansandhu

Read this below:

Gandhi is MORE popular than Jinnah

Gandhi is a million times MORE popular than Jinnah!

Like I asked you why must lowly Jinnah become a comparison for great Mahatma especially when the great popularity contest has proved that Mahatma was more popular than Jinnah?

Btw what did Jinnah do to Dina that you say is similar to Gandhi? There is a big difference in opposing something (if at all he did) and Gandhi`s treatment of women .... So lowly Jinnah opposed Dina`s marriage (but did not STOP it) and somehow it is the moral equivalent of Gandhi beating his wife?

Please tell us more of your logic sir...

mantolives,
i am a female not a male. ok gandhi was a wife beater. he is honest and man enough to admit it. he choose to write about it. he could have not done so.
has any indian called jinnah lowly, and the competion is in your mind and yes gandhi is more popular than jinnah.
reg dina i mentioned that bec pakistanis started saying that jinnah was mordern etc
i am quoting what historians said abt dina and jinnah. now be honest enough and admit
it.

From the web site ``http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gwomen.htm``

---

Article
“Gandhi and Status of Women”
by Jyotsna Kamat

Article on how Mahatma Gandhi`s experiments with truth involved and affected women`s status in the 20th century in India.

Excerpts from a lecture given at the Gandhi Peace Foundation in December 1998

Women`s status at the time
When Gandhiji assumed India`s leadership the average life span of an Indian woman was only twenty seven years. Babies and the pregnant women ran a high risk of dying young. Child marriage was very common and widows were in very large number. Only 2% of the women had any kind of education and women did not have an identity of their own. In North India, they practiced the purdah (veil) system. Women could not go out of the house unless accompanied by men and the face covered with cloth. The fortunate ones who could go to school had to commute in covered carts (tangas).

It is in this context that we have to recognize the miracle of Gandhi`s work. Gandhiji claimed that a woman is completely equal to a man and practiced it in strict sense. Thousands and millions of women, educated and illiterate, house wives and widows, students and elderly participated in the India`s freedom movement because his influence. For Gandhiji, the freedom fight was not political alone; it was also an economic and social reform of a national proportion. After a couple of decades, this equality became very natural in India. After India`s freedom (in1947) and adoption of constitution (1950), emphasized equality of women, when Hindu code was formulated, the population was not even impressed. They said -``Of course, it had to be done.``

Woman and Progress
Gandhiji always advocated a complete reform which he called ``Sarvodaya`` meaning comprehensive progress. He believed that the difference between men and women was only physical and has expressed several times in his writings that in many matters especially those of tolerance, patience, and sacrifice the Indian woman is superior to the male. You will discover this when you read his articles from ``Young India`` and ``Harijan``. During the 40 years of his political career, he only found more reasons to deepen his faith in what he wrote. He never had a specific program for women, but women had a integral role to play in all his programs. I feel that this is one of the reasons why women participated in his programs so overwhelmingly.

Gandhiji declared that there is no school better than home and there is no teacher better than parents. He said men and women are equal, but not identical. ``Intellectually, mentally, and spiritually, woman is equivalent to a male and she can participate in every activity.``
Indian society is a male dominated one. Gandhiji has illustrated in his autobiography (The stories of my experiments with truth) how early in his marriage he too wanted to dominate his wife. He often said that paternal society is the root cause of inequality. In his book, there is a very touching chapter about when he asked his wife to clean a public toilet and the resulting conflict between him and his wife. He has written how ashamed he was of himself, and how he took care not to hurt her anymore for the rest of his life. Even though there was big gap between him and his wife intellectually, it did not affect their family life. He has said that Kasturba followed her husband more than was expected of her. Gandhiji followed Bramacharya (strict discipline of food, drinks, and of celibacy) from a very young age, but when his wife passed away, Gandhi grieved that without Ba, his life would have been meaningless. That was the bondage of his 62 years of marriage.

Woman and Social Service
Gandhiji struggled very hard to understand a woman`s physical and mental pain. From a young age he introduced his wife and children to social sacrifice and service. He believed that service has to be performed for self-fulfillment, not for public consumption or exhibition. He believed that the publicity given to one`s social service actually decrements the value of the service. He tried very hard to eliminate job indignity and bias based on caste system. He tried to do the work of a barber, dhobi (washer man), and janitor to understand them and demonstrate that the work one does has no impact on one`s status in the society. For me, the fact that he contributed a great deal in raising his children is very modern concept. On one occasion the white midwife would not show up for his wife`s delivery and Gandhiji himself delivered his child. He helped wife with feeding, bathing, and toiletries of the infant. In western countries these days men are encouraged to be with their wives during the delivery and the men are supposed to pitch in with diaper changing, etc. Gandhiji practiced this very modern concept 90 years ago in his own family.

Role of Women
``Womanhood is not restricted to the kitchen``, he opined and felt that ``Only when the woman is liberated from the slavery of the kitchen, that her true spirit may be discovered``. It does not mean that women should not cook, but only that household responsibilities be shared among men, women and children. He wanted women to outgrow the traditional responsibilities and participate in the affairs of nation. He criticized Indian`s passion for male progeny. He said that as long as we don`t consider girls as natural as our boys our nation will be in a dark eclipse.

Child Widows
Gandhiji was especially considerate of the young widows. In the last 80 years, as a nation, if we have made any progress on the matter of child widows (girls used get married very early and after untimely deaths of their husbands, they were condemned to a life of great agony, shaving heads, living in isolation, and shunned by the society.) it is due to the reformers like Gandhiji and his contemporaries. Gandhiji once noted during his legendary travels across India that he never came across 13 year old who was not married. He declared the marriages in which the girls were not consulted were unholy. At that time in Madras presidency, the number of child widows were alarmingly large. He called upon the young to marry the widows and also to boycott child marriages. (It may be noted here that Gandhiji himself married when very young; he was thirteen.) The history of India knows of many such young men who married widows and went on to work as social reformers.

Temple women and Prostitutes
Gandhiji was very disturbed by the plight of this low caste untouchable section of the society, namely the Devadasis. (see also: The Temple Women) He was hurt by the miserable way the children of brothels were treated. He had made elaborate plans for their rehabilitation. He declared that protecting women`s honor was important and as holy as protecting cows. His book ``Women and Social Injustice`` contains discussions of very deep thoughts and solutions on the topic. He felt that after India became free, the system of temple women and brothels must be abolished. Even though on paper we have abolished the system of Devadasis, rampant exploitation of women as sex servants has continued. There was no way Gandhiji could have predicted modern ways and means of prostitution (call girls, phone sex etc) but he certainly identified its social evil and tried to fight it.

Gandhiji`s contribution for betterment of women in India
As we look back at the Indian history and compare the conditions of women before Gandhi`s rise, and now, the progress we have made is quite enormous. A whole generation of women leaders came up influenced by Gandhi`s vision. If today in India so many women can go to work in offices, educational institutions, and factories without fear or hesitation, the roots for such system were laid 90 years ago by Gandhiji and his followers.
As mentioned earlier, Gandhiji formulated India`s freedom struggle as a comprehensive plan for women`s development. Even though a lot of inequalities remain in our society, there is a fundamental agreement that men and women are equal. As Indians, we can be very proud that the same cannot be claimed even by so called ``advanced nations``. In Britain as well as in the U.S.A., women could not vote 75 years ago. But women`s voting came very naturally to us from the beginning. About 100 years ago, the western woman could not own property, get a divorce or take the custody of her children. We just have to look at the life and struggles of Dr. Annie Besant to understand the status of western women during Gandhiji`s time. The western women had to take to streets, overcome many stereotypes to establish themselves voting and other rights. But for us, political, economic and voting rights came so naturally through the constitution!

Legacy
Today, if Gandhi`s agenda has fallen apart, it is due to Indian politics. The continued exploitation of women can be attributed to the degradation in moral values of the society, and utter poverty of our nation. We ignored the role of social service, job dignity, and self reliance. Once in a while we run into true volunteers (like Sushilamma - see visit to an ashram) who believe in Gandhiji`s ideals and have implemented his programs. I hope that at least a few of the younger generation take up Gandhiji`s unfinished manifesto and work to eliminate social barriers facing women.

Dear ``Female``,

Be honest for once instead of being a Gandhian...

The historians only say that for some reason Jinnah is said to have opposed his daughter`s marriage... but he did not stop it ... or in any way try to stop it.

How is that the same as the bigoted anti-feminist views of Mr Gandhi?