Gandhi on Women

While it is undeniable that Gandhi brought women into the public sphere through his non-violent campaigns, his vision for the role of women in the movement was limited. He thought women had a unique role to play because their nature made them the most legitimate proprietors of ahimsa. In his view women were the “incarnation of ahimsa” because of their “infinite love” and “infinite capacity for suffering” (Joshi, “Gandhi On Women,” p.316). But, he did not see them as equal to men. Gandhi highlights the words of a woman he respects to define the role of women in society. She wrote: “women are…intended to be soft, tender-hearted, sympathetic, to mother children” (qtd in Joshi, “Gandhi on Women” p.314). Gandhi saw women as mothers, sisters, and wives in Indian society and he felt that they could play corresponding roles in India’s independence. Women’s inherent non-violence and dharma as self-sacrificing caregivers was circumscribed into the way in which Gandhi probed them to participate in the movement. Because women had different natures then men, according to Gandhi, they had a different duty in the push for Indian independence.

This is particularly evident when we examine the way Gandhi viewed the respective roles of men and women in the Homespun campaigns. Gandhi felt that women were better suited to the work of spinning than men because of their nature. He wrote: “since the beginning of time there has been a division of labor between men and women. Adam wove and Eve Span. The distinction persists to the present day” (Gandhi on women 312). It seems that Gandhi believed in the division of labor based on biology going all the way back to Genesis. Feminists cringe at Gandhi’s analysis at this occasion. Gandhi certainly wrote about women conservatively, but Gandhi’s actions reveal that he did not necessarily believe in strict adherence to the gendered division of labor (Fiedelholtz, Paper 2). In his ashrams, for example, he felt that everyone should do the cooking and cleaning, something that in his writings he would say that women were more predisposed to do (Fiedelholtz, Paper 2). That said, there is not abundant evidence of women’s participation in the politics of the independence movement.

It is the overwhelming delegation of women to certain spheres of the movement that is appalling from a feminist perspective. While there are a couple of women like Kamaladevi and Naidu that Gandhi confided in as his main disciples, and treated as intellectual counterparts, this was not true for the majority of women, who were not invited into the politics of the movement. These millions of women were instead asked to spin. Even his own wife Kasturba was very much a behind the scenes character in Gandhi’s life and he spent much time away from her. It is interesting to consider their marriage as an example of the division of labor. Gandhi was out doing the political work, traveling across India, and Kasturba was confined to the sphere of the home. When it came to family decisions, Kasturba did not have a strong say either. For instance, Harilal, Gandhi’s eldest son wanted to study in London, but Gandhi would not allow him to do so because of his disdain for the modern education system. If Kasturba had wanted something different for her son, it didn’t matter because Gandhi got the final say, and he was resolute in his view.

Gandhi’s vision of women in the movement is evidence of a perspective grounded in biological essentialism. Their physical biology determined the work that they should do. As feminist scholar Madhu Kashiwar writes in total dismay, “Gandhi’s very vocabulary, in its exaggerated idealization of women as ‘sisters of mercy’ and ‘mothers of entire humanity’ reveals the bias of a benevolent patriarch” (Kashiwar, Gandhi and Women, p.84). The foundation of Gandhi’s perspective on women fails feminists because of his utter disregard for the fact that women can be something other than sisters and mothers. Perhaps there are women who do not identify with characteristics of nurture and service. Perhaps there are women who are masculine and ruthless in nature. These women did not fit into Gandhi’s model. Gandhi was even haste to advocate for the institution of marriage, and he felt that the only purpose of wifehood was to prevent sexual relations from occurring.

Gandhi celebrated the chaste and moral woman, but he simultaneously feared their sexual nature and chose to ignore it. As Nandy puts it, Gandhi believed that “woman as an object and source of sexuality was inferior to woman as a source of motherliness and caritas” (Nandy, The Intimate Enemy, p.54). It is not only that Gandhi has a “vindictive revulsion against…irresponsible sex for the sake of sensual enjoyment” in general, as evidenced by him asking his students to observe celibacy (Kishwar, Gandhi and Women, p.91). Gandhi told Indians to “consider every woman except their wife as their mother or daughter or sister,” effectively denying the prospect that women might have a sexuality. What’s more is that when bringing the topic of sex to the conversation, Gandhi assumes his audience to be men. This ignores the fact that women might actually want to have sex with men and not just the other way around. As Kishwar explains, “according to Gandhi, women….should not allow even their husband to enjoy any physical relation with them” (Kishwar, Gandhi and Women, p.88). In Gandhi’s view, sex was something that men did to women, something that they forced upon them, something that was unwarranted, and not something that women could enjoy or might even ask for. This was certainly the case when he proclaimed to his wife Kasturba that he was taking a vow of celibacy and she had to comply.

Overall, Gandhi denied women’s sexuality and only envisioned specific roles for them in the independence movement that aligned with their role in society as sisters and mothers. But, he did not see sisterhood and motherhood as inferior to masculinity. He thought that they were in fact, superior and better suited to the non-violence movement. He felt that in pursuit of femininity, India could find its independence as a nation (Fiedelholtz, paper 2). As much as Gandhi celebrated the nature of women, his position cannot be defended as feminist because of his adherence to the notion that women are biologically predisposed to be a certain way and thus play a certain role. With this in mind, it is hard to imagine that Gandhi saw women as more than the ideal moral figureheads of the non-violence movement.