Mahatma Gandhi is often celebrated as a symbol of non-violence, a champion of freedom and a spiritual leader who led India to independence. However, beneath the surface of these accolades lies a more complex figure – one whose political, economic and social philosophies carry contradictions that continue to shape India’s polarised political landscape today.
A deeper look into Gandhi’s writings, speeches and the criticism surrounding him offers insight into the man we didn’t fully know.
Gandhi’s Hindu nationalism: seeds of modern polarisation
Gandhi’s advocacy for a united India was deeply influenced by his Hindu upbringing, often aligning his political philosophy with Hindu ideals. His promotion of “Ram rajya” – the ideal kingdom ruled by the principles of Lord Ram – offered a vision for India that was, for many, more Hindu than secular.
Gandhi once said, “I am a Hindu myself and I claim to be an orthodox one. It is my further claim that I am a sanatani Hindu,” reflecting how Hinduism shaped his worldview. He envisioned India’s moral rebirth through its connection to Hindu spirituality.
Yet, his close alignment with Hindu principles did not come without political consequences. His opposition to the partition of India in 1947, which led to the creation of Pakistan as a Muslim state, was based on a vision of religious harmony and was rooted in his belief in religious unity.
However, his unwillingness to concede to Muslim demands for greater political autonomy fuelled tensions. Critics argue that his deeply Hindu-influenced vision alienated Muslims.
Gandhi’s vision of unity, rooted in Hindu ideals, struggled to resonate with an increasingly polarised population.
The legacy of Gandhi’s Hindu nationalism has echoed through modern India. Today’s BJP, which promotes Hindutva, sees Gandhi as an inspiration, but selectively. It embraces his nationalism while distancing itself from his pluralistic ideals. The political polarisation between secularism and Hindu nationalism finds its roots in the contradictions within Gandhi’s own ideology.
Gandhi’s troubling views on race
Gandhi’s racial views, formed during his time in South Africa, reveal an uncomfortable facet of his legacy. Though he is widely regarded as a champion of civil rights, his early writings show a different picture.
While in South Africa, Gandhi campaigned for better treatment of Indian immigrants but expressed derogatory views toward Black South Africans. In 1908, he referred to Black Africans as “kaffirs”, a racial slur, and argued for the separation of Indians from Africans in prisons.
In his writings, he spoke of the Europeans’ “desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir.”
Such statements are jarring in light of Gandhi’s later role as a global icon of human rights. His early stance in South Africa reflected a colonial mentality that placed Indians above Black Africans in the racial hierarchy.
While Gandhi evolved in his views on race over time, these earlier beliefs have led to a re-evaluation of his legacy, particularly in African nations like South Africa, where statues of him have been defaced in protests. Ashwin Desai, a South African historian, has argued that Gandhi was no saint and that he was deeply shaped by the racial prejudices of his time.
This darker aspect of Gandhi’s legacy complicates his image as a universal figure for justice and equality. It challenges the narrative that casts him as a flawless moral leader, showing that even the most revered figures are not immune to the biases of their era.
Non-violence and political pragmatism
Gandhi’s philosophy of ahimsa, or non-violence, was undoubtedly revolutionary. Gandhi’s approach of satyagraha, or non-violent resistance, rallied millions in India and influenced civil rights movements globally, including Martin Luther King Jr. in the US and Nelson Mandela in South Africa. He is well-known for stating, “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind.”
But Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence also revealed limitations in his ability to address the complexities of political struggle. The Non-Cooperation Movement in the early 1920s, which aimed to resist British rule through peaceful means, collapsed when protests turned violent in Chauri Chaura, where 22 policemen were killed.
Gandhi immediately called off the movement, much to the dismay of many freedom fighters. This decision led to a split within the Indian National Congress, with leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose advocating for a more militant approach to independence.
Bose critiqued Gandhi’s rigid commitment to non-violence, arguing that “Give me blood, and I promise you freedom!” The divide between Gandhi’s idealism and the pragmatism of other leaders illustrates the tension between moral principles and political necessity. Gandhi’s philosophy was admirable, but it often faltered when faced with the harsh realities of colonial oppression.
Moreover, Gandhi’s political compromises, such as the Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 1931, which ended civil disobedience in exchange for limited concessions from the British, drew criticism for being too moderate. While Gandhi believed in gradual reform, many saw his willingness to negotiate with the British as a betrayal of the broader struggle for independence.
Gandhi’s enduring, yet contradictory legacy
Gandhi’s influence on modern India remains profound, but his legacy is riddled with contradictions. His vision for a self-reliant, agrarian India has been overshadowed by the country’s economic transformation into a global power. Gandhi’s “village republics” never materialised in the face of industrialisation and urbanisation. His critique of materialism may resonate with modern concerns over inequality, but his economic ideals seem incompatible with the demands of a growing population and a fast-moving global economy.
Religious tolerance, one of Gandhi’s central messages, feels more relevant than ever in an India fractured by communal violence. Yet, his own reliance on Hindu symbols has made him a contested figure. Hindu nationalists invoke Gandhi’s spirit to advance their political agenda, while secularists struggle to reconcile his Hindu-centric vision with the multicultural reality of India.
Perhaps Gandhi’s greatest contribution lies in his ability to inspire. His commitment to non-violence continues to offer a moral framework for activists worldwide, while his shortcomings serve as a reminder that even revered leaders are fallible. In an era of polarised politics, Gandhi’s life reminds us that political leadership is often a balancing act between idealism and pragmatism.
A Gandhi for today
As India grapples with issues like religious intolerance, economic inequality and environmental degradation, Gandhi’s legacy offers both solutions and cautionary lessons. His message of peace and unity remains essential, but it must be re-examined in light of his failures. The “Gandhi we didn’t know” – the man whose views on race, religion and politics carried deep contradictions – provides a more honest reflection of his impact.
Gandhi’s life was a blend of profound wisdom and deep flaws, much like the nation he helped create. Understanding his complexities helps navigate the challenges India faces today, while acknowledging the limits of his vision for a country that has far outgrown the moral and political frameworks of his time.
As Jawaharlal Nehru has aptly noted, Gandhi was no ordinary man, but he was a man and had his faults like other men.
Debashis Chakrabarti is a political commentator and Commonwealth Fellow in the UK. A former professor and dean at Assam University, he has taught across the UK, the Middle East and Africa.
