Critiques of Gandhi

Gandhi and Race in South Africa

Gandhi spent 21 years in South Africa (1893-1914), where he developed satyagraha and first became a political leader. But his early South African writings reveal deeply troubling views on race. In the 1890s and early 1900s, Gandhi repeatedly used the derogatory term 'kaffir' to describe Black Africans and argued that Indians should not be classified alongside them. He petitioned for Indians to be given rights equal to white settlers, not for the rights of all South Africans.

In 1903, he wrote in the Indian Opinion that the white race in South Africa should be 'the predominating race' and objected to Indians being forced to use the same facilities as Black Africans, whom he described as 'troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.' These statements are documented in the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi and are not disputed by serious historians.

Gandhi's defenders note that his views evolved over time and that by the 1940s he expressed solidarity with African Americans and other colonized peoples. Some scholars argue that his early views reflected the prejudices of his time and class. Critics, particularly in South Africa and among African diaspora scholars, argue that his racial attitudes were not incidental but structural, and that his legacy in South Africa has been unjustly sanitized.

Political Critiques

Gandhi's political decisions have been challenged from multiple directions. From the left, critics argue that his insistence on nonviolence was tactically rigid and sometimes counterproductive. His decision to call off the Non-Cooperation Movement after Chauri Chaura in 1922, when the movement was at its peak, demoralized millions of participants and allowed the British to regroup. Subhas Chandra Bose and other Congress leaders believed Gandhi prioritized purity of method over effectiveness of outcome.

From Dalit intellectuals, the most damaging critique is that Gandhi used the independence movement to preserve Hindu social hierarchy. His fast against separate electorates in 1932 is seen not as a principled defense of unity but as an exercise of upper-caste power that deprived Dalits of independent political representation. Ambedkar's assessment was blunt: Gandhi was the best friend untouchables ever had among caste Hindus, but that was a very low bar.

From Muslim political thinkers, Gandhi's claim to represent all Indians masked what was effectively a Hindu majoritarian politics. His use of Hindu religious imagery, his invocation of Ram Rajya (the rule of the god Rama) as a political ideal, and his merger of spiritual and political authority made secular Muslims uneasy and contributed to the conditions that made Partition possible.

The Contemporary Reassessment

In recent years, Gandhi's legacy has faced its most sustained reassessment. Statues have been removed or vandalized in Ghana, Malawi, and South Africa over his racial views. University campuses in India debate whether Ambedkar's constitution or Gandhi's moral authority did more for Dalit liberation. Feminist scholars have drawn attention to his brahmacharya experiments and his treatment of Kasturba.

This reassessment is healthy and necessary. A figure who is beyond critique is beyond understanding. But the reassessment should be conducted with the same commitment to truth that Gandhi himself professed. Cherry-picking his worst statements from the 1890s while ignoring his evolution, or celebrating his achievements while dismissing his victims, are both forms of dishonesty. The goal of critical history is not to judge the past by present standards but to understand how even extraordinary moral leaders can be limited by their own blind spots, and to ask what blind spots we ourselves might have.