Bhikkhu Parekh, a distinguished professor and also an upper caste/ Hindu belonging for M.K. Gandhi’s own State of Gujarat, analyzed the sex exploits of the “Father of the nation”. Extracts from his book were published by the Times of India and Telegraph. Bhikkhu Parekh, 54, professor of political theory at Hull University was attacked as “the second Rushdie® for this book. Parekh, deputy chairman of UK’s Commission for Racial Equality, dealt with Gandhi’s experiments with celibacy and his practice of sleeping naked with young women. His critics, however accused him of seeking to promote either his book, Colonialism, Tradition and Reform, or his own fame by needlessly denigrating Gandhi 40 years after his death. He has been abused at a public meeting in London, where he was also physically attacked. Parekh has been vice-chancellor of Baroda University in India and a visiting professor in the United States and Canada, and has written several learned books on philosophy. In 1944, Gandhi began his most unusual celibacy we experiment. He started openly sleeping naked with women. They included his grandnieces Abha and Manu (who was only 19); his doctor, Sushila Nayar; and Prabhavati Narayan, the wife of the prominent politician, Jaya Prakash Narayan.
Gandhi took a decision to practice sexual abstinence in 1901, apparently without consulting his wife. For the first few years he was only “more or less successful”. As was his wont, he decided to stiffen his resolve by taking an unbreakable vow for observe complete brahmacharya in 1906 when he was 37 years of age and – about to launch his first satyagraha in South Africa. He did not find his task easy. As he later admitted to Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur, the “sexual passion is the hardest to overcome in my case. It has been an – incessant struggle. It is for me a miracle how I have survived it”. He made his vow even more difficult by continuing to sleep next to his wife and refusing to follow the “cowardly” practice of avoiding contact with other women.
Gandhi experimented with his diet, habits and lifestyles to ascertain what stimulated the sexual impulse and how it could be weakened and eventually mastered. He “discovered” that the senses fed off each other and that none of them could be mastered without conquering the others as well. He found that there was a particularly close connection between food and sexuality and that a rich, heavy and Dalit Voice spicy diet as well as milk had a strong tendency to stimulate it. He “discovered” too, that the “idle” mind. was particularly vulnerable to the solicitations of the sexual desire, and kept himself busy all his waking hours. He thought that a cold shower, chanting the name of Rama and frequent prayers facilitated self-control.
At a different level, he ‘discovered” that the sexual impulse derived much of its intensity from a mistaken approach to the human body. So long as one perceived the body as an instrument of pleasure, one expected every organ to yield its distinct mode of gratification and could not avoid feeling that not to seek sexual pleasure was to “waste” an important organ. Gandhi contended that the battle against sexuality became easier when one altered one’s approach to the body. As he put it: “If one is convinced that the genital organs are not intended, for sex gratification, wouldn’t one’s attitude change completely?”
On the basis of these and other “experimental” findings, Gandhi evolved a rigorous code of discipline, and his “thinking process” began to undergo a “process of cleansing”. Evidently, his conquest of sexuality was not yet complete and he needed to remain watchful. As he said in 1926, though his physical celibacy was fairly safe, he had not yet acquired a complete mastery over the mind and was vulnerable to “insidious invasions” of “undesirable thoughts”.
Since Gandhi felt fully confident about his physical self-control, he continued to maintain close physical contacts with his female associates. Many Indians disapproved of this, especially his practice of putting his hands on their shoulders, and some even raised the matter with him both publicly and in private. He responded by taking a vow in September 1935 to stop the practice “for the sake of public good”, but broke it in Sevugan a couple of years later saying that it was not intended to include his wife, Sushila Nayar, Manu and the other girls were “like daughters” to him. When accused of casuistry, he rejoined that the spirit of the vow was far more important than the later and that be alone knew its spirit.
The year 1936 proved particularly trying for Gandhi. Throughout the preceding year he had worked extremely hard and slept no more than four or five hours a day. He fell ill in December 1935 but continued his punishing routine until he finally collapsed in the first week of January in 1936. While he was convalescing in Bombay, he felt an intense sexual desire.
Gandhi had little doubt about why the desire had “invaded” him after all these years. He wrote to a colleague:
It had its origin in my pampering the body with food while doing no work. I understood the cause and from that time stopped taking rest as prescribed by the doctors.
Gandhi summed up his feelings in a fascinating and brutally frank article in Harijan. When he recovered from his illness, he resumed his earlier heavy routine and regained his self-confidence. Two years later, he had another crisis. On April 14, 1938, he had a “bad dream” involving a “desire to see a woman” and an ejaculation. Evidently, he was completely shattered. As he wrote to Madeleine “The degrading, dirty, shook me to bits.” He was in a “well of despair,” “obsessed by a feeling of self-guilt” and did not know what had gone wrong. He lost all self- confidence, became moody and his political work began to suffer. He had to see Jinnah for long and difficult negotiations, and he did not feel up-to it. Although he met him and worked out important proposals, he felt unsure of himself and looked to Nehru to provide the lead.
Gandhi discussed the “April incident” with his close colleagues and, despite their advice to the contrary, wrote an article about it in Harijan. He thought that since he was a public figure and his experiments had important lessons I for others, he had a duty to share his experience with them. They came to us with all kinds of advice. Both Mirbane and Amrit Kaur advised him to avoid all contact with “women, not merely touch but also “proximity, speech, look, letter”, and not just with some but all women, ‘including his wife and doctor. mirbane told him that the April incident was not an isolated one, for she had once seen him put his arm around a female Solecisms neck in sleep.
Gandhi decided on June 2, 1938, that he “would not touch any woman ever so lightly and even out of sheer fun”, the only exception being his doctor, Sushila Nayar. The April incident had “awakened” him to the fact that although he ‘might not consciously feel sexual desire, it could “unknown to him” lurk around in the dark recesses of his mind. More than ever before, he became alert to its unconscious operations and felt the need to devise new strategies to track down and subdue it. A few months later, he felt -sufficiently confident and resumed the old practice of maintaining close physical contact with his female co-workers. Sometimes they slept next to him and Sushila Nayar even “slept with” him to keep him warm. She also gave him “massage and medicated baths” lasting over an hour and a half, during which he often dozed off or transacted business with such male colleagues as his secretary Mahadev Desai and Sushila Nayar’s brother, Pyarelal.
Sushila Nayar slept with him
Gandhi’s lifestyle gave rise to considerable gossip both in India and abroad. The gossip became vicious when Prema Kantak, to whom he had written some brutally frank letters about his sexual struggles, published their correspondence with his approval. The first public reference to Gandhi’s lifestyle appeared in October, 1939 in Bombay Chronicle whose Allahabad correspondent reported “starting revelations” about his private life. A provincial Hindu
fundamentalist paper carried more lurid: stories, named Sushila Nayar and accused him of “gross sensuality” and adharma. Some of the American journals, which had hinted at his “improper’ relations with Madeleine Slade during their visit to London in 1931, indulged in even wilder speculations.
Gandhi was not in the least ruffled by all this. He published in Harijan both the Bombay Chronicle report and the charges levelled by the Indian and American papers. He repudiated the charges, asked his critics to produce evidence and offered a detailed explanation of his conduct. He contended that the “campaign of vilification” was inspired by the orthodox.: i27us angered by his vigorous national movement against untouchability. That was why it had begun in Maharashtra, been spearheaded by the Brahmins and given greatest publicity in the Marathi papers run by them.
Undeterred by the campaign, Gandhi not only continued his close associations with women but also embarked upon a most unusual practice. For the past few years, he had slept with them in the same room at a respectable distance, and of late he had begun to “sleep together” with some of them. He now decided to take the next step of sleeping naked with female colleagues as part of a new experiment. He seems to have started doing this after his wife’s death on Feb. 22, 1944. His reference to “Women or girls who have been naked with me” in his letter to Birla in April 1945 indicates that several women were involved. _ It would appear that in addition to Sushila Nayar, Prabhavati Narayan, Abha Gandhi and Manu Gandhi also formed part of the experiment. Lilavati, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Antussalaam and several others also seem to have been involved, although it is not clear whether they simply “slept together” with him or did so as part of the experiment.
When some of friends and colleagues came to know about it, they expressed strong disapproval. acknowledging that his experiment was “innocent” and inspired by the highest of motives, they were worried that it would set a bad example alienate public opinion and bring him into disrepute. Gandhi. remained unconvinced. He said that all his life he had insisted on doing what he thought was right “in utter disregard of social customs”. He had cultivated Muslim and Harijan friends and incurred the wrath of his family; he had insisted on crossing the seas and suffered the penalty of excommunication; he had attacked untouchability and admitted an untouchable woman into his ashram and patiently borne the execration of orthodox Hindus. before, going to bow on ‘an issue of nice as his sexual lever, since his; ‘held strong views, he was pre rod temporarily to discontinue the experiment and think again. As he wrote to Manilal Shah in March 1945: –
Thus, I am what I am. There is no point in talking about the welfare of society… I cannot give up thinking. As far as possible I have postponed the practice of sleeping together. But it cannot be given up altogether… if I completely give up sleeping together my brahmacharya will be put to shame… Such restrictions should not be imposed on me.
Over a year later, Gandhi decided to resume the experiment. Manu Gandhi had for some time expressed a strong desire to work with him, and he decided for send for her in the October of 1946. She was his grandniece and had served “his wife with great devotion during her final illness. Just before her death, his wife had entrusted her to Gandhi who agreed to become her “mother”. In a letter inviting her to join him, he wrote, “I am not sending for you to make you unhappy. Are you afraid of me? I will never force you to do anything against your wish.” The last cryptic remark seems to refer to Manu’s _ participation in an earlier experiment and perhaps to her joining Gandhi but expressed worry about the * “impure” atmosphere in his ashram. He seems to have in mind Pyarelal, whom N.K. Bose later accused of “shadowing women in Gandhi’s ashram. Gandhi assured him that _ Pyarelal’s eyes were “clean” and – that he was “not likely to force himself on anybody”.
Gandhi’s experiment of sharing his bed naked with the 18-year-old Manu began on Dec. 20, 1946. He did not mention it to her father himself, but asked her to do so. Gandhi asked her to keep a diary and daily secure his signature of approval.
Though Gandhi first referred to the experiment in a letter to Krishnadas Jaju on Jan. 8, 1947, just under three weeks after it had begun, it is unlikely that others did not know about it or that he himself had not mentioned it to them earlier. Gandhi’s small hut had no privacy and accessible to the public almost all hours of the day and night. And since this was not the first time, he had embarked upon such an experiment, his close colleagues, especially the women in his entourage, must have known about it. Not even his worst enemies, and he had many, and not even the vigilant British officers, ever thought that he was engaged in anything other than an innocent experiment.
Contrary to his general practice, Gandhi made no prior public announcement of his experiment, nor did he take his followers into confidence about his real reasons for undertaking it. Perhaps that would have defeated its purpose, or perhaps he was worried that he might not be allowed to launch it. Anyway, word got around leading initially to a wave of what he called “small talks, whispers and innuendoes” and eventually to an extremely strong public reaction.
Nehru & Patel get upset Fully aware of the way Vishvamitra, Vyasa and other great rishis had been defeated by the sexual impulse even after hundreds of years of penance and self-mastery, many of his colleagues and friends began to suspect the worst. Some of his followers, mostly Gujarati, broke off relations with him; two editors of Harijan resigned in protest; some started “non- cooperation” with him; Sardar Patel was “very angry” and refused to speak to him; Vinoba Bhave wrote to him a letter of disapproval; his son, Devdas, wrote a highly emotional and critical letter; his devoted stenographer, Parshuram, left his service; Kishore Lal Madhubala and others, who had remonstrated against a similar practice earlier, were implacably and noisily hostile; Pandit Nehru was disturbed; and several friends demanded to see him for a satisfactory explanation.
Criticisms of Gandhi’s conduct was broadly along the following lines. First, it set a bad example to other. Second, it threatened to weaken the foundations of social morality, outrage public opinion and represented adharma. Third, he had begun the experiment in secret. Fourth, he had a duty to submit his “advanced’ ideas to public discussion before acting on them. Fifth, his experiment had no sanction in the Hindu religious tradition. Sixth, it was wholly pointless as it did not seem to have beneficial effects either on his immediate surroundings or on the nation as a whole. And finally, it involved an emotional and spiritual exploitation of innocent and gullible women and implied that women were inferior. This last point was stressed by Professor N.K. Bose, Gandhi’s interpreted-secretary, in his resignation letter.
In his view, Gandhi had taken no account either of its deleterious effects on Manu or of the jealousy and “hysteria” it aroused in the other women around him who all felt possessive about him and feared rejection. He also reminded Gandhi of Freud’s view that men were often motivated by deep unconscious desires at variance with their conscious intentions and which. even the most searching introspection often failed to uncover.
Gandhi was unrepentant. He acknowledged that his actions had cost him his dearest societies, but insisted that the “whole world may forsake me but I dare not leave what I hold is the truth for me.” He could be making a mistake but “must realize it myself”. His action might disillusion his followers who might now think badly of him and wonder if he was really a Mahatma. “I must confess the prospect of being so debunked greatly pleases me”, Gandhi re-joined.
Although Gandhi himself did not put the point this way, his thought during this intensely agonizing period reveals a tendency latent in his earlier years but not fully manifest until now. He was determined to control the violence raging all around him. He was convinced that, as a national leader, he was responsible for its occurrence. He was also convinced that all violence ceased in the presence of non-violence. He therefore concluded that if only he could eliminate all traces of violence and aggression within himself, he would be able to exert a quiet and “contagious” force and sent out vibrations that would conquer the violence of his countrymen. Accordingly, he turned his attention inward and probed his psyche. He seems to have concluded that though he had eliminated all traces of violence within himself, one still remained. As we saw earlier, he, associated sexuality with violence and aggression. So long as he was conscious of himself as a male, elements of aggression and violence were bound to remain, even if he was not conscious of them. The only way, out was to cease to be a male, to become a woman.
His final sexual experiment with Manu was an attempt to become, and to test that he had succeeded in becoming a woman. This was why he said that he wanted to become a “mother” to Manu.: This was also why, unlike his earlier experiments, he now asked her to keep a diary and show it to him every day. He was convinced that if he had really become a woman, she could not feel sexually stimulated in his presence, and wanted to be sure that was how she felt.
Gandhi’s experiment also linked up with another powerful stand in the Hindu especially the Vaishnavite tradition. He had striven all his life to become a beautiful soul worthy of divine Anuradha. He had eliminated all “impurities” and become as perfect as it was within his power to become. He had even surrendered his male identity and the last residual source of violence. He could go no further and had to await divine grace. If God thought him a fit vehicle, he would do His work through him. Otherwise, he stood helpless. That might perhaps explain why, having himself earlier described his experiments as Prayog, he now called them yojana. Unlike a Prayog, a yojana signified total self-surrender, a plaintive prayer and desperate cry for help. It could seem that most of Gandhi’s -critics were persuaded by his arguments. They restored their – relations with him and said, both privately and in public, that they had done him a grave injustice. –
(Azad Academy Journal, Oct. 1— 31 1989, which acknowledged it to ™ the Times of India).
