In “The Theory and Impact of Gandhi’s Feminism,” Shane Ryland proposes a reconsideration of Mahatma Gandhi’s contributions to feminism and sexual equality. He asserts that previous scholarship on the subject is “far from satisfactory” and tends to use only limited sources from those who venerate Gandhi rather than objectively consider his positions on equality (131). Ryland discusses Gandhi’s experience with women, including his wife Kasturbai, and how those relationships helped him formulate an ideology of equality between men and women. Ryland’s argument is that, despite Gandhi’s difficulties in his own personal life, Gandhi was a “dedicated feminist” whose ideas for equality between the sexes were progressive for his time (131).
Ryland divides his argument into five sections, including a brief introduction and conclusion. The three middle sections set forth Ryland’s most convincing arguments for Gandhi as a staunch feminist. First, he describes the basis for Gandhi’s belief that both sexes should be equal. This includes a discussion of Gandhi’s relationship with his wife which led him to evaluate the aspect of discrimination and exploitation within a marriage. Ryland explains that Gandhi’s awareness of exploitation within a marriage led him to the belief of atman which is the belief that all human souls and therefore all humans, no matter what sex, are the same. This became the basis for Gandhi’s feminist beliefs.
The second section of Ryland’s argument details Gandhi’s “inventory of discrimination” in which Gandhi railed against “glaring abuses” as well as discrimination that had become so ingrained in Indian society that it was acceptable (132). Among the most egregious offenses were the discrimination of daughters by their parents, the lack of education for young Indian girls, and the marriage of pre-adolescent girls. One of Gandhi’s most provocative suggestions that Ryland explains in this section is the belief that women should not rely on men to protect them but should instead take responsibility for their own safety and well-being. By accepting responsibility for their own safety, women could then become independent and would therefore have more opportunities in their life such as education, “wider occupational horizons,” and most importantly, equality in marriage (134).
The third section of Ryland’s argument centers on how Gandhi attempted to implement his ideology of equality into his own life. Ryland explains Gandhi’s continued struggle with his own wife with whom he continued a “traditional” relationship of inequality between the husband and wife. Ryland also discusses how Gandhi’s maternal attitudes towards his devoted women followers made it difficult for those women to form a sense of independence and equality for themselves.
Ryland’s conclusion, while short, presents an interesting close to his argument. Here Ryland discusses the short-term impact of Gandhi’s vision with the massive turn-out of women protestors in 1930. This “glowing example of Gandhi’s ability to foster a spirit of assertiveness among Indian women” addresses the “impact” part of Ryland’s thesis (140).
Ryland’s work is informative on both Gandhi’s position on feminism as well as on his life in general. Ryland’s discussion of Gandhi’s tumultuous relationship with his wife was especially informative when considering their relationship in the context of women’s rights. Ryland’s insistence that Kasturbai never fully accepted or chose to follow her husband’s ideology is interesting in light of the impact that Gandhi had on other young women whom Ryland describes as “devoted followers” (134).
Ryland’s study also raises several lingering questions. For example, what impact did Gandhi’s vision have on those others than his devoted followers? Ryland states, “The impact of Gandhi’s feminist thinking upon his less intimate followers cannot be document in detail.” However, it would be interesting to discover if Gandhi’s words and ideas were used by feminist movements outside of India such as in France and the United States during the 1960s. Also, what, if any, was the push back from Indian society and Indian men in particular, against Gandhi’s ideas. Because he was putting forth an ideology that was progressive, almost revolutionary, for the time, there must have been a negative reaction against his vision from society with entrenched ideas about proper gender roles.
Works Cited
Ryland, Shane. “The Theory and Impact of Gandhi’s Feminism.” University of Washington. South Asia Colloquium of the Pacific Northwest. Winter 1975. Paper presentation.
