I’m not much of a “let’s have one more statue” guy, no
matter whose or how tall. (In my humble opinion, the proper place for statuary
and paintings is a museum.) What intrigues me, though, about Dr Kusoom Vadgama’s
objection to one more Gandhi statue in London http://bit.ly/1rGUo9P is the reason she uses as
a prop: the inscrutable ol’ man’s obsession with sex and, particularly, his
making much younger close relatives of the opposite sex the guinea pigs of his
experiment with celibacy. (Once again, in my humble opinion, a simple
one-too-many-statues objection would suffice.)
The Gandhian credentials of the currently irascible Kenya-born,
Illinois-educated, London-based and musically inclined Optometrist and
Historian are impeccable. That she has suddenly woken up to Gandhi’s cryptic sexual
behaviour and preference for naked female companionship of young relatives is
therefore a bit puzzling. The insensitive, self-righteous, eccentric and
erratic old man http://bit.ly/XBGSvA had no qualms when logging
in reports of his experiments in Harijan.
The other thing that intrigues me about the good
Doctor is that, in spite of her historian’s insight into the worldwide feminist
movement, she merely mentions Gandhi’s use of young women who were close
relations as “guinea pigs” in his maha
yagna (his fanciful nomenclature for "brahmacharya"/celibacy
experiments). Dr Sushila Nayyar, his physician, personal masseur and off-and-on
bed sharer, once told Ved Mehta that "brahmacharya" was a latter-day
invention of Gandhi to ward off criticism of his interaction with his female
intimates. Earlier, before Nayyar in her late teens went to medical school, she
used to be his bed mate for reasons of nature cure. http://bit.ly/LWXS2N
One reason for Gandhi making Manu and Abha his bed mates
could be easy accessibility as also their willingness to serve him no matter
what. The other, most likely, was the power he knew he had over them as the
patriarch of the family. Patriarchy and masculine hegemony, as is well-accepted
by now, are the main culprits responsible for the continuing subjugation of
women in India. Incest −
and paedophilia − are the pathological (deviant) offshoots of patriarchy.
Normal men tend to be protectors while deviant men, predators. Sometimes, a
patriarch may inadvertently cross the line between the two roles back and forth
harbouring ambivalent feelings towards women.
Do read Girja Kumar's BRAHMACHARYA Gandhi & His Women Associates. In this book based
mostly on Gandhi’s writings. “… the so-called Mahatma comes out as
manipulative, pathologically obsessive about sex and sin as well as
power-crazed. His logic sounds circuitous, serpentine and often
self-contradictory and specious, at times even inane. He apparently played God
with the lives of those close to him. He was too intrusive and interfering.” http://bit.ly/LWXS2N
I have noticed that when it comes to writing or
talking about the Father of the Nation, even normally sane and balanced people lose
their nerve. They start to tread overcautiously as it they were walking on
eggshells. Finally the ex-Gandhian good Doctor has spoken the so far unspoken.
That’s a good beginning, methinks.
