Comparing AAP ex-minister's sex scandal to Gandhi outrageous

Amid the raging controversy over sexual transgressions of a minister of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi and his subsequent removal from the Cabinet, an important debate has been raised over the private life of a public figure.

An AAP spokesperson has sought to argue that if there is no offence under the law and an act such as sex is consensual, it is not punishable by authorities who control the public institution – in this case, the political party.

In essence, he has raised a serious question on the freedom of an individual who also is a public figure. In arguing his case, he has compared the act with purported similar acts by tall public figures in Indian politics, among them Pandit Nehru, Ram Manohar Lohia and above all, Mahatma Gandhi. The argument sought to be made is that all those were private matters and were justified on the grounds of liberty to the private space of a public figure.

At the outset, it must be stated that comparison with Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders is odious and betrays a lack of understanding of the life and work of the Father of the Nation. In the present instance, the sacked minister, Sandeep Kumar, has been accused of rape, a charge which is under investigation and gives a different colour to the case. But the larger argument on the issue of morality in public life, and especially in political space, and Mahatma Gandhi’s contribution to it, needs to be debated.

Gandhiji’s experiments with practicing brahmacharya were part of his experiments with truth as a mumukshu (person desiring moksha in the Hindu tradition of Vedanta, or freedom from the cycle of birth and death). His journey was personal; the arena was public life.

Gandhiji has categorically stated in his autobiography that all his ventures in the political field were directed to his pursuit of the goal of moksha. His life was open to the public and his transparency goes beyond any norms set anywhere, past or present. There is no mention of any extramarital affairs leading to physical relations.

Millie Graham, wife of Henry Polak, Gan-dhiji’s close friend in South Africa, is said to have noted that in Gandhi she had found a close friend with whom she could share the most intimate things that are shared only with a very close friend. Gandhiji did come close to one or two women but none of them had ever led to physical relations.

When his close associates drew his attention to its hazards, notwithstanding his own clarity and self-restraint, he had brought an end to such involvements quickly. He did conduct a bold experiment on celibacy in East Bengal to test his inner strength which he believed would impact the external environment. It was indeed highly controversial and it did not meet approval. But it is well-known that his moral stature in the public eye had not come down.

Common people had taken it as a sincere, self-designed test by a leader they revered. That was because his life was genuinely an open book and his contribution, work and character had earned him the highest stature in the minds of the people. But it is worth noting that even such a tall leader was questioned and asked to change course.

The question then is, should a person continue to enjoy such a freedom in private when he or she is in public life? Gandhiji knew that all those who were in public life were not on a personal spiritual journey. On a pragmatic platform, therefore, Gandhiji was convinced that self-restraint in private life would help the individual to act in an unattached manner in public life.

Political scientists Lloyd Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph discussing self-control and political potency, say that there is some continuity between a man’s personal life, self-indulgence or self-constraint and the capacity to act disinterestedly in matters of state and general welfare.

But in modern times, private morals have been made less relevant in public life. Rudolph noted that in the United States, for instance, if a senator or even a President pays attention to ladies other than his wife (Rudolph wrote in 2006 after the sex scandal that engulfed Bill Clinton’s second term as US President), doing so will not affect his capacity to manage affairs of the state – provided he conducts himself with some circumspection and gives no cause for scandal. The Western political tradition relies upon external, rather internal restraints, and on institutional rather than self-imposed ethical limits to control those who are in power.

Won’t serve AAP

In the Indian context, it is inner control and discipline under the tenet of dharma, implying rightful duty. A person in public life has to be a person of character exercising self-restraint all the time. Gandhiji believed in self-imposed internal ethical control as against institutional restraints imposed from the outside by society on one’s behaviour, especially when in public life.

The public spirit of the private person wielding power must develop inner strength rather than being bound solely by external institutional control which is easily subverted resulting in the abuse of power we see around us. Practicing self-restraint is also more sustainable and irreversible. It is a character-building process.

It should be remembered that when a person is in public life, there is hardly anything private. If a person has taken a conscious decision to be in public life, he or she has to exercise self-restraint in private behaviour; this has an ethical dimension and carries the potential to affect judicious and fair handling of affairs of the state and commitment to the public good.

As a political party, the AAP has a big agenda ahead of it. It will not serve the party or its cause to engage in debate by throwing around casual and outrageous comparisons to the tallest of Indian leaders.

(The writer is former Vice-Chancellor, Gujarat Vidyapeeth, a university founded by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920)