Gandhi was a brilliant statesman, a master strategist and possibly one of the greatest leaders India has ever

had. Since this question focuses on the negative side of the Mahatma, I'd not bring up the positive aspects of his personality. But that should not dilute his role in India's freedom struggle. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I've focused on the 1910 - 1947 era, but it still does not address some of the other controversial aspects of Gandhi's work, notably (a) Post independence policies (b) Economic policies (c) Pre-1921 work in South Africa (d) Sundry aspects around personal life (experiments with brahmcharya, treatment of his wife Kasturba, etc) (e) Gandhian influence on India's foreign policy and work in India A. Non violence and its extreme application 1. Gandhi and the Jews 2. Rejection (and ridicule) of the revolutionaries 3. Failure of the non cooperation movement B. Forcing undemocratic changes within Congress 1. Crisis at Tripuri - the ousting of Netaji 2. Foisting Nehru as the leader of the Congress and India's first Prime Minister 3. Fasts as a method of blackmail C. Gandhi and the overall struggle for independence 1. Why wasn't Gandhi given a harsher punishment by the British? 2. Was Gandhi really successful in getting India independence - Supposed failure of the Quit India movement and the impact of Royal Indian Navy ratings 3. Supporting the Khilafat and rise of Muslim (and later Hindu) fundamentalism 4. Prematurely calling off two movements D. Personal life 1. Frugal living? 2. Views on the Hindu caste system E. The unfortunate killing of the Mahatma and Godse's critique (See http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-... for detailed text) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Non violence and its extreme application Gandhi promoted non-violence, but went to great extremes to defend the system no matter how impractical the advice was or how badly it hit those who were working towards achieving the same objectives but by following different methods. 1. Gandhi and the Jews According to Gandhi, Jews should have given a "heroic response" to Hitler by committing mass suicide. This would have aroused the world and the Germans against Hitler.

Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions. The Life of Mahatma Gandhi by Louis Fischer 2. Rejection (and ridicule) of the revolutionaries (a) Madan Lal Dhingra One of the absolutely smartest brains of India's freedom struggle is a relatively unknown person by the name of Madan Lal Dhingra. Together with Har Dayal, his thoughts and writings were to influence the Indian revolutionary struggle for the next30 years.

[Madan Lal Dhingra]

In 1909, he assassinated Sir Curzon Wyllie, an aide to the Secretary of State in India in London. He confessed to the killing, refused a defense counsel and made the following statement in the Court -

... I maintain that if it is patriotic for an Englishman to fight against the Germans if they were to occupy this country, it is much more justifiable and patriotic in my case to fight against the English. I hold the English people responsible for the murder of 80 millions of Indian people in the last fifty years, and they are also responsible for taking away 100,000,000 every year from India to this country. I also hold them responsible for the hanging and deportation of my patriotic countrymen, who did just the same as the English people here are advising their countrymen to do. ... Just as the Germans have no right to occupy this country, so the English people have no right to occupy India, and it is perfectly justifiable on our part to kill the Englishman ... I am surprised at the terrible hypocrisy, the farce, and the mockery of the English people. They pose as the champions of oppressed humanitythe peoples of the Congo and the people of Russiawhen there is terrible oppression and horrible atrocities committed in India; for example, the killing of two millions of people every year ... In case this country is occupied by Germans, and the Englishman, not bearing to see the Germans walking with the insolence of conquerors in the streets of London, goes and kills one or two Germans, and that Englishman is held as a patriot by the people of this country, then certainly I am prepared to work for the emancipation of my Motherland. ... I wish that English people should sentence me to death, for in that case the vengeance of my countrymen will be all the more keen. Source: Old Bailey records His parting thoughts, with echos of Nathan Hale -

I believe that a nation held down by foreign bayonets is in a perpetual state of war. Since open battle is rendered impossible to a disarmed race, I attacked by surprise. Since guns were denied to me I drew forth my pistol and fired. Poor in wealth and intellect, a son like myself has nothing else to offer to the mother but his own blood. And so I have sacrificed the same on her altar. The only lesson required in India at present is to learn how to die, and the only way to teach it is by dying ourselves. My only prayer to God is that I may be re-born of the same mother and I may re-die in the same sacred cause till the cause is successful. Even the British held Dhingra in regard. Winston Churchill, then president of the Board of Trade was so impressed that he committed Dhingra's words to memory and said "they were the finest in the name of patriotism". Source: Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age

On the other hand, Gandhi's reaction in such situations wasn't silence, but a vocal, often highly contemptuous and many times an almost vitriolic critique.

It is being said in defence of Sir Curzon Wyllies assassination that...just as the British would kill every German if Germany invaded Britain, so too it is the right of any Indian to kill any Englishman.... The analogy...is fallacious. If the Germans were to invade Britain, the British would kill only the invaders. They would not kill every German whom they met.... They would not kill an unsuspecting German... Even should the British leave in consequence of such murderous acts, who will rule in their place? ... India can gain nothing from the rule of murderersno matter whether they are black or white. Under such a rule, India will be utterly ruined and laid waste. (b) Hanging of Bhagat Singh One of the most romanticized episodes of India's revolutionary freedom struggle has been the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev. On April 8, 1929, Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw two bombs inside the central assembly protesting against two new draconian laws. They voluntarily surrendered with the objective of using their trial to inspire and lead the masses towards a revolution.

If the deaf are to hear, the sound has to be very loud. When we dropped the bomb, it was not our intention to kill anybody. We have bombed the British Government. The British must quit India and make her free. After a short trial, Bhagat Singh was hanged.

[The Tribune, March 25, 1931] Seven days later, Gandhi wrote in Young India

These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism. But we should not imitate their act. In our land of millions of destitute and crippled people, if we take to the practice of seeking justice through murder, there will be a terrifying situation. Our poor people will become victims of our atrocities. By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions. When the countryside was seething with anger, Gandhi's words came almost as a shocker. A more serious allegation is that Gandhi never forced the British to commute Bhagat Singh's sentence. To give a brief about the background, these were no ordinary times. By early 1931, the Congress struggle had gained momentum. Then came the Gandhi Irwin Pact, which restored confiscated land and freed political prisoners. Gandhi had allegedly signaled that he would not break the post civil disobedience truce to stop Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev's hanging. And the government promptly sent the three to the gallows. This led to an immense wave of anger against the Congress leadership and specifically Gandhi. Congressmen waived black flags against Gandhi when he left the train at Karachi. About 15 years back, an aged freedom fighter closely associated with the freedom struggle had mentioned to me that

Gandhi could have stopped Bhagat Singh's execution. According to him, the sticky situation in which the British had found themselves is unimaginable in today's era and Gandhi simply did not do enough. That for me is enough of an evidence. Gandhi, however, could not prevent radicalization of Congress elements. 3. Failures of the non cooperation movement From 1920 - 1947, Gandhi prematurely ended two of the three big struggles that he launched - (a) Non Cooperation Movement (b) Civil Disobedience Movement (third one was the Quit India Movement) The Non - Cooperation Movement was hastily called off as it was begining to gather some momentum due to the Chauri Chaura incident. Wikipedia has a nice summary -

Around the first of February, 1922, volunteers participating in the Non-cooperation Movement protested for a fair price for meat in the marketplace. The demonstrators were beaten back by local police. In response, a protest against the police was called for February 5, to be held in the local marketplace. February 5, 1922, arrived, approximately 2000 protesters assembled and began marching towards the Chauri Chaura bazaar. Armed police were dispatched to control the situation while the crowd marched towards the market and started shouting antigovernment slogans. In an attempt to frighten and disperse the crowd, the police fired warning shots into the air but this only agitated the crowd who began to throw stones at the police. With the situation getting out of control, the subinspector ordered the police to open fire on the advancing crowd, killing three and wounding several others. Reports vary on the reason for the police retreat with some claiming that the police ran out of ammunition while others claim that fear of the crowd's unexpectedly courageous and angry reaction to the gunfire were the cause but whatever the case, in the ensuing chaos, the heavily outnumbered police fell back to the shelter of the police chowki while the angry mob advanced. Infuriated by the gunfire into their ranks, the crowd took revenge by setting the chowki ablaze, killing the 23 officers trapped inside. ... Appalled at the outrage, Gandhi went on a five-day fast as penance for what he perceived as his culpability in the bloodshed. ... On February 12, 1922, the Indian National Congress halted the Non-cooperation Movement on the national level as a direct result of the Chauri Chaura tragedy. The failure of the Non Cooperation movement led to a direct rise of militant nationalism in the decade of 1920s. B. Forcing undemocratic changes within Congress 1. Crisis at Tripuri - the ousting of Netaji

[Gandhi with Netaji] In 1938, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, a charismatic leader from the left had been the choice as the president of the Congress. In 1939, he decided to contest elections again, bringing in radical ideas into the Congress. Instead of Gandhi's non violent and long term struggle, Subhas and his associates had been advocated a more radical and direct confrontation with the British. However, the top leadership of the Congress Working Committee decided to counter Subhas' radical thinking. With Gandhi's support, the leadership decided to put up Pattabhi Sitaramayya as a candidate against Subhas. Despite the full might of the Congress' top leadership, Subhas won the election.

Gandhi declared: "Pattabhi's defeat is my defeat." Soon Gandhi's supporters resigned from the Working Committee and Subhas found himself isolated from the top Congress leadership. With no cooperation from Gandhi, Subhas resigned within a few months and decided to launch his own front. 2. Foisting Nehru as the leader of the Congress and India's first Prime Minister (a) Background

Everything started in early 1946 when the Indian National Congress had to elect a new President. It was an accepted fact that the leader chosen as the President would become the first Prime Minister of independent India. Three candidates were in the race - Acharya Kripalani, Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel.

[Nehru, Kriplani and Patel]

Sardar Patel was easily the most popular. Everyone knew his efficiency and toughness for tackling difficult problems. 12 out of 19 State Congress Committees nominated him; none nominated Nehru. From the start, Gandhi had indicated that he favored Nehru. His reasoning was that his British education was an asset: "Jawaharlal cannot be replaced while the charge is being taken from the British. He, a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate and a barrister is wanted to carry on the negotiations with the Englishmen." Another point Gandhi made was that while Sardar Patel would agree to work as Nehru's deputy, the reverse might not happen. He also felt that Nehru was better known abroad and could help India play a role in international affairs. Eventually in deference to Gandhi, Kripalani nominated Nehru and withdrew from the race. Patel had no choice but to follow his colleague, so that Nehru could be elected unopposed. Dr. Rajendra Prasad (India's first President) later stated: "Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru." Source: India and her neighbors: A French Observers view, Claude Alpi, verified from other secondary sources. (b) There's a broad consensus that having Patel instead of Nehru at the helm of affairs would have been better for the nascent nation. This has been well documented - from the Hyderabad and Kashmir problems to the Chinese occupation of Tibet. [Can be expanded if folks feel like it] 3. Fasts as a method of blackmail Again well documented. But impacted Congress leadership more than the others. C. Gandhi and the overall struggle for independence 1. Why wasn't Gandhi given a harsher punishment by the British? Most of the Indian revolutionaries were sentenced to very harsh punishments. However, the moderate Congress leadership was rarely subjected to such treatment. Those exiled to the harshest terms at the Andaman Cellular Jail were Batukeshwar Dutt, Lokmanya Tilak, Fazl-ul-Haq, VD Savarkar, Sohan Singh. However, Gandhi and other top Congress leaders were never subject to such harsh terms. While the revolutionaries were being hunted down and mercilessly executed, the Congress leadership would always end up in a prison.

[Andaman Cellular Jail] If the British thought that Gandhi was as dangerous as say a Bhagat Singh, why wasn't he tried under IPC for waging war against the country and subsequently hanged? Herein comes another theory, popularly known as the 'Safety valve theory'. In fact, the 1885 birth of the Indian National Congress has been alleged to providing Indians with a platform to bring out their resentment vocally. Its aim was to "divert the minds of Indians from any sort of violence and further the British rule in India." Gandhi and the political leadership of the Congress could be seen as an extension of this safety valve and keeping the British rule immune from violence and any real threat from anarchy. 2. Was Gandhi really successful in getting India independence - Supposed failure of the Quit India movement and the impact of Royal Indian Navy ratings In 1942, Congress passed a resolution in Wardha demanding complete independence from the British. In his Quit India speech, Gandhi told Indians to follow non-violent civil disobedience. Although his call found support among a large amount of Indians, the mobilization at the national level faded. The top leadership of the Congress was quickly sent to secret locations by the British. There were over 100,000 mass arrests.

And by early 1944, the movement was all but over, with India back to being peaceful and its leaders still in jail. However, another unexpected turn of events took place. Subhas Chandra Bose, the exiled Congress leader had escaped India and formed an army of combatants who had surrendered to the Japanese in South East Asia. At its peak, the strength of the Indian National Army (INA) reached 43,000 men.

[Netaji and the INA]

The original plan was to work with the Congress to instigate an internal rebellion while in the INA. Gandhi was opposed to the idea as it involved an armed struggle and aligning with the Axis powers. Soon, the Axis powers lost and the military rout of the INA was near complete. At the conclusion of the war, the British Indian government brought captured INA soldiers to trial at the Red Fort on treason charges. The historic Red Fort trials generated a wave of anger and the armed forces became sympathetic to the cause. For instance, the Royal Indian Navy staged a mutiny that spread and found support throughout British India, and came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors. Soldiers at Jabalpur staged another revolt. It was only after appeals from the Congress, League and CPI leaders that the strikes were called off.

The British now increasingly realized that the Indian army, unlike in 1942, could not be used to suppress a revival of the Quit India movement owing largely to nationalistic and political consciousness in the forces which was ascribed to the INA. In fact, the INA news was so inflamatory that the BBC was forbidden from broadcasting the story. An ever popular view amongst the some historians is the alleged statement by Clement Attlee. PB Chakroborty then the Chief Justice of of the Calcutta High Court had asked Attlee about the role of Subhas Chandra Bose in India's freedom struggle.

When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee who as the British Prime Minister in post-War years was responsible for Indias freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan, Calcutta, for two days and I put it straight to him like this: The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so? In reply, Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhis 1942 movement, Attlees lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, Minimal. 3. Supporting the Khilafat and rise of Muslim (and later Hindu) fundamentalism Gandhi wanted to involve muslims directly in India's freedom movement. With the Khilafat movement, he ended up stoking panIslamic fundamentalism.

It is clear as daylight that the Khilafat ... means the restitution of Jazirat-ul-Arab to complete Muslim control under the spiritual sovereignty of the Caliph. It was only after Mustafa Kamal Pasha made Turkey into a secular state and completely wound down the institution of Caliphate, that took wind out of the sails of the movement. It was at this time that Jinnah, later the founder of Pakistan started distancing from the Congress leadership because the "kind of a plan has appealed only to the illiterate and the inexperienced youth of the country" Surprisingly, Bhagat Singh, the young revolutionary was better informed and has written extensively about the coming interreligion strife than Gandhi and worked far more actively to promote secularism. 4. Prematurely calling off two movements We've already discussed the failure of Non-cooperation movement. The Civil Disobedience Movement was also called off at its peak with the Gandhi Irwin pact. It resulted in Congress participation in the Round Table Conference in London. However, Gandhi soon realized that the movement's objectives had not been met - he tried to relaunch the struggle, but failed as the momentum had already waned. D. Personal life Again, not going too deep here - just focusing on two aspects that impacted India 1. Frugal living? "It costs a great deal of money to keep Gandhi living in poverty" - Sarojini Naidu He had no known source of income and was dependent on the generosity of the rich industrialists in India including the Sarabhais, Bajajs and Birlas. "His consumption of fresh fruit would have (allegedly) bankrupted a middle class household." Gandhi always remained opposed to the ideas of class struggle and "scientific socialism" as they were sweeping the intelligentsia. It's been alleged that Motilal Nehru had sponsored Gandhi's initial tour of India and that would explain why Gandhi was almost always inclined towards the Nehru family. [not verified / to be deleted] 2. Views on the Hindu caste system While social reformers of their times were trying to break apart the practice of caste system, Gandhi was a staunch defender of the system. Arya Samaj, a Hindu movement that aimed to remove caste boundaries came under especially scathing attack. Some select quotes "A Shudra cant be called a Brahmin even if he possesses all the qualities of a Brahmin by inheritance. He should never claim his right other than the Varna in which he was born. This is an evidence of his being humble."

"As per the Hindu Scriptures if a person adopts any other profession in place of his family profession, he commits violence and he renders himself to meanness by not following his ancestral profession." "If the lower caste people leave their ancestral professions and adopt another profession, their expectations will rise and they will lose their mental balance and ultimately their familys peace will be destroyed." "I will oppose the separation of the Untouchables from the caste Hindus even at the cost of my life. The problems of the Untouchables have no relevance or important before it." "I feel that the western culture, which is the product of devils, has shattered our caste system." 3. "Earthquakes caused by India's treatment of untouchables" An earthquake stuck Bihar in 1934. Gandhi declared that this earthquake was God's punishment for the sin of untouchability. Although challenged by Tagore, he still continued to believe his thesis. E. The unfortunate killing of the Mahatma and Godse's critique Note: Before I go any further, I am not trying to defend Gandhi's killer. It was a cruel, inhuman and an utterly despicable act. However, I won't go deep into the other side but focus on the finer points which Gandhi's killer (Nathuram Godse) makes. It was not an act by a madman, but a well calibrated move. In fact during his trial, such was his eloquence that one of the judges, Mr. Khosla overseeing the trial remarked -

I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godses appeal, they would have brought a verdict of not Guilty by an overwhelming majority His trial speech and thesis is worth reading at least once in entirety. It's about a 100 pages. See http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-... for detailed remarks. It's quite long and is a scathing criticism of Gandhi and his policy. I'd add just his concluding remarks -

My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism leveled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.