Why should intimate lives of our leaders be taboo?
- Sagarika Ghose
- TNNUpdated: Jan 07, 2023, 20:22 IST IST
The mini-series Harry & Meghan has become an international talking point. The show in which they poured out their own and the royal family’s intimate secrets (reportedly for a multi-million-dollar fee) has opened a hallowed institution like the British monarchy to international discussion about racial prejudice and social exclusion. Such public discussions are entirely healthy and should be welcomed in modern open democracies. In fact, many Indian public figures should embrace a similarly refreshing openness about their personal lives.
In India, there’s too much old-fashioned feudal deference to VIPs. Mahatma Gandhi himself wrote candidly about his experiments with celibacy but there was little discussion about celibacy as a Gandhian principle at the time. Jawaharlal Nehru’s relationships with Edwina Mountbatten and Padmaja Naidu may be social media memes today, but Nehru, a widower, never tried to hide his friendships with women friends whose company he openly enjoyed. Socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia, who lived with his companion Rama Mitra, once said, “Between a man and a woman everything is permissible, so long as there is no use of force or breach of commitment.” Why should intimate lives of public figures be taboo, when they had no reason to be ashamed of their personal conduct?
In India, there’s too much old-fashioned feudal deference to VIPs. Mahatma Gandhi himself wrote candidly about his experiments with celibacy but there was little discussion about celibacy as a Gandhian principle at the time. Jawaharlal Nehru’s relationships with Edwina Mountbatten and Padmaja Naidu may be social media memes today, but Nehru, a widower, never tried to hide his friendships with women friends whose company he openly enjoyed. Socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia, who lived with his companion Rama Mitra, once said, “Between a man and a woman everything is permissible, so long as there is no use of force or breach of commitment.” Why should intimate lives of public figures be taboo, when they had no reason to be ashamed of their personal conduct?
