E-Book - Mahatma Gandhi

68 Contextualising Gandhian Thoughtabstinence, the real idea was to eliminate the very thought ofsex from the human mind. He gave two major arguments in itssupport. One, that virya was the main source of physical andmental power and any kind of sexual indulgence resulted in theloss of that power. Two, such an indulgence was the root causeof other evils like envy, hypocrisy, anger and hatred. This ideawas further strengthened when he founded Satyagraha Ashramin 1915, as one of the eleven vows to be taken by the inmatesof the ashram was the vow of brahmacharya. Every inmatewas to lead the life of a celibate whether married or unmarried.This was the apogee of his views on brahmacharya. Not onlythat, he went to the extent of saying that a married couplewilling to undertake a vow of celibacy should behave as if theyare not married. In other words, they must not engage in sexualactivity even for the sake of procreation. And that is why, nomarriage was to take place in the ashram, and if any marriagebecomes unavoidable, it could be celebrated outside theashram. Subsequently, his idea underwent various changesincluding his definition of brahmacharya. Later, he agreed tothe celebration of marriage but on his own condition and underhis own guidance. He even devised his own saptapadiunderlining mutual support and moral living. It was mid-1930sthat he was willing to soften his stand on rigid brahmacharya.Perhaps, this was the result his long debate on birth controlwith Margaret Sanger followed by his discussion with VinobaBhave, himself a life-long celibate. Consequently, he waswilling to accept that a couple cohabitating for the sake ofprocreation, but not enjoyment, could very well be accepted asbrahmacharis. Thus, his attitude to marriage changed, as hetook it as a ‘natural thing’ and sex urge a ‘noble thing’ but onlyfor the sake of procreation. This was followed by his changedstand on the abstention from the sexual relationship in respectof a married couple. Reversing his earlier stand on the issue, hefelt that for a couple, mutual consent was necessary for such a