Creative expressions attain their
perfect form through emotions modulated. Woman
has that expression natural to her a cadence
of restraint in her behaviour, producing poetry of
life. She has been an inspiration to man, guiding,
most often unconsciously, his restless energy into
an immense variety of creations in literature, art,
music and religion. This is why, in India, woman
has been described as the symbol of Shakti, the creative
power.
But if woman begins to believe that,
though biologically her function is different from
that of man, psychologically she is identical with
him; if the human world in its mentality becomes exclusively
male, then before long it will be reduced to utter
inanity. For life finds its truth and beauty,
not in any exaggeration of sameness, but in harmony.
If woman’s nature were identical
with man’s, if Eve were a mere tautology of
Adam, it would only give rise to a monotonous superfluity.
But that she was not so was proved by the banishment
she secured from a ready-made Paradise. She had
the instinctive wisdom to realise that it was her
mission to help her mate in creating a Paradise of
their own on earth, whose ideal she was to supply with
her life, whose materials were to be produced and
gathered by her comrade.
However, it is evident that an increasing
number of women in the West are ready to assert that
their difference from men is unimportant. The
reason for the vehement utterance of such a paradox
cannot be ignored. It is a rebellion against
a necessity, which is not equal for both the partners.
Love in all forms has its obligations,
and the love that binds women to their children binds
them to their homes. But necessity is a tyrant,
making us submit to injury and indignity, allowing
advantage over us to those who are wholly or comparatively
free from its burden. Such has been the case
in the social relationship between man and woman.
Along with the difference inherent in their respective
natures, there have grown up between them inequalities
fostered by circumstances. Man is not handicapped
by the same biological and psychological responsibilities
as woman, and therefore he has the liberty to give
her the security of home. This liberty exacts
payment when it offers its boon, because to give or
to withhold the gift is within its power. It
is the unequal freedom in their mutual relationships
which has made the weight of life’s tragedies
so painfully heavy for woman to bear.
Some mitigation of her disadvantage
has been effected by her rendering herself and her
home a luxury to man. She has accentuated those
qualities in herself which insidiously impose their
bondage over her mate, some by pandering to his weakness,
and some by satisfying his higher nature, till the
sex-consciousness in our society has grown abnormal
and overpowering. There is no actual objection
to this in itself, for it offers a stimulus, acting
in the depth of life, which leads to creative exuberance.
But a great deal of it is a forced growth of compulsion
bearing seeds of degradation. In those ages when
men acknowledged spiritual perfection to be their object,
women were denounced as the chief obstacle in their
way. The constant and conscious exercise of allurements,
which gave women their power, attacked the weak spots
in man’s nature, and by doing so added to its
weakness. For all relationships tainted with repression
of freedom must become sources of degeneracy to the
strong who impose such repression.
Balance of power, however, between
man and woman was in a measure established when home
wielded a strong enough attraction to make men accept
its obligations. But at last the time has come
when the material ambition of man has assumed such
colossal proportions that home is in danger of losing
its centre of gravity for him, and he is receding
farther and farther from its orbit.
The arid zone in the social life is
spreading fast. The simple comforts of home,
made precious by the touch of love, are giving way
to luxuries that can only have their full extension
in the isolation of self-centred life. Hotels
are being erected on the ruins of homes; productions
are growing more stupendous than creations; and most
men have, for the materials of their happiness and
recreation, their dogs and horses, their pipes, guns,
and gambling clubs.
Reactions and rebellions, not being
normal in their character, go on hurting truth until
peace is restored. Therefore, when woman refuses
to acknowledge the distinction between her life and
that of man, she does not convince us of its truth,
but only proves to us that she is suffering.
All great sufferings indicate some wrong somewhere.
In the present case, the wrong is in woman’s
lack of freedom in her relationship with man, which
compels her to turn her disabilities into attractions,
and to use untruths as her allies in the battle of
life, while she is suffering from the precariousness
of her position.
From the beginning of our society,
women have naturally accepted the training which imparts
to their life and to their home a spirit of harmony.
It is their instinct to perform their services in such
a manner that these, through beauty, might be raised
from the domain of slavery to the realm of grace.
Women have tried to prove that in the building up
of social life they are artists and not artisans.
But all expressions of beauty lose their truth when
compelled to accept the patronage of the gross and
the indifferent. Therefore when necessity drives
women to fashion their lives to the taste of the insensitive
or the sensual, then the whole thing becomes a tragedy
of desecration. Society is full of such tragedies.
Many of the laws and social regulations guiding the
relationships of man and woman are relics of a barbaric
age, when the brutal pride of an exclusive possession
had its dominance in human relations, such as those
of parents and children, husbands and wives, masters
and servants, teachers and disciples. The vulgarity
of it still persists in the social bond between the
sexes because of the economic helplessness of woman.
Nothing makes us so stupidly mean as the sense of superiority
which the power of the purse confers upon us.
The powers of muscle and of money
have opportunities of immediate satisfaction, but
the power of the ideal must have infinite patience.
The man who sells his goods, or fulfils his contract,
is cheated if he fails to realise payment, but he
who gives form to some ideal may never get his due
and be fully paid. What I have felt in the women
of India is the consciousness of this ideal their
simple faith in the sanctity of devotion lighted by
love which is held to be divine. True womanliness
is regarded in our country as the saintliness of love.
It is not merely praised there, but literally worshipped;
and she who is gifted with it is called Devi,
as one revealing in herself Woman, the Divine.
That this has not been a mere metaphor to us is because,
in India, our mind is familiar with the idea of God
in an eternal feminine aspect. Thus the Eastern
woman, who is deeply aware in her heart of the sacredness
of her mission, is a constant education to man.
It has to be admitted that there are chances of such
an influence failing to penetrate the callousness
of the coarse-minded; but that is the destiny of all
manifestations whose value is not in success or reward
in honour.
Woman has to be ready to suffer.
She cannot allow her emotions to be dulled or polluted,
for these are to create her life’s atmosphere,
apart from which her world would be dark and dead.
This leaves her heart without any protection of insensibility,
at the mercy of the hurts and insults of life.
Women of India, like women everywhere, have their
share of suffering, but it radiates through the ideal,
and becomes, like sunlight, a creative force in their
world. Our women know by heart the legends of
the great women of the epic age Savitri
who by the power of love conquered death, and Sita
who had no other reward for her life of sacrifice
but the sacred majesty of sorrow. They know that
it is their duty to make this life an image of the
life eternal, and that love’s mission truly
performed has a spiritual meaning. It is a religious
responsibility for them to live the life which is
their own. For their activity is not for money-making,
or organising power, or intellectually probing the
mystery of existence, but for establishing and maintaining
human relationships requiring the highest moral qualities.
It is the consciousness of the spiritual character
of their life’s work, which lifts them above
the utilitarian standard of the immediate and the
passing, surrounds them with the dignity of the eternal,
and transmutes their suffering and sorrow into a crown
of light.
I must guard myself from the risk
of a possible misunderstanding. The permanent
significance of home is not in the narrowness of its
enclosure, but in an eternal moral idea. It represents
the truth of human relationship; it reveals loyalty
and love for the personality of man. Let us take
a wider view, in a perspective truer than can be found
in its present conventional associations. With
the discovery and development of agriculture there
came a period of settled life in our history.
The nomad ever moved on with his tents and cattle;
he explored space and exploited its contents.
The cultivator of land explored time in its immensity,
for he had leisure. Comparatively secured from
the uncertainty of his outer resources, he had the
opportunity to deal with his moral resources in the
realm of human truth. This is why agricultural
civilisation, like that of India and China, is essentially
a civilisation of human relationship, of the adjustment
of mutual obligations. It is deep-rooted in the
inner life of man. Its basis is co-operation
and not competition. In other words, its principle
is the principle of home, to which all its outer adventures
are subordinated.
In the meanwhile, the nomadic life
with its predatory instinct of exploitation has developed
into a great civilisation. It is immensely proud
and strong, killing leisure and pursuing opportunities.
It minimises the claims of personal relationship and
is jealously careful of its unhampered freedom for
acquiring wealth and asserting its will upon others.
Its burden is the burden of things, which grows heavier
and more complex every day, disregarding the human
and the spiritual. Its powerful pressure from
all sides narrows the limits of home, the personal
region of the human world. Thus, in this region
of life, women are every day hustled out of their
shelter for want of accommodation.
But such a state of things can never
have the effect of changing woman into man. On
the contrary, it will lead her to find her place in
the unlimited range of society, and the Guardian Spirit
of the personal in human nature will extend the ministry
of woman over all developments of life. Habituated
to deal with the world as a machine, man is multiplying
his materials, banishing away his happiness and sacrificing
love to comfort, which is an illusion. At last
the present age has sent its cry to woman, asking
her to come out from her segregation in order to restore
the spiritual supremacy of all that is human in the
world of humanity. She has been aroused to remember
that womanliness is not chiefly decorative. It
is like that vital health, which not only imparts
the bloom of beauty to the body, but joy to the mind
and perfection to life.