After 78 years of independence, it is becoming clear that the legacy left behind by Mahatma Gandhi is quite controversial. Present-day historians are challenging long-held notions of non-violent resistance and highlighting the consequences of the same.
Just look into the following:
- Gandhi’s popular narrative as the “Father of the Nation” must be questioned, given that he consistently prioritised Muslim interests over Hindus and Sikhs.
- His biased approach is underscored by cases like the Moplah Rebellion, where he seemingly downplayed or justified atrocities committed by Muslims against Hindus, leafing to criticism from contemporaries and leaders like Ambedkar.
- His pacifism often translated into appeasement of Muslims, advising Hindus and Sikhs not to retaliate in the face of violent attacks during communal riots.
- He may have caused irreparable harm to India, especially Hindus and Sikhs, despite being credited with the country’s independence.
Here are few examples of his bias against Hindus:
1 On 23rd December 1926, a Muslim assassin shot dead Swami Shraddhanand, who belonged to Hindu organization Arya Samaj, and was responsible of reconverting over 160,000 Muslims from Malkana Rajputs back to Hinduism. This was not liked by Muslim clerics and leaders who instigated violence against Swami. Few days after the assassination, in a Nation Conference of Congress, he described the assassin as “Bhai Abdul Rashid” which shocked the listeners who already shocked by the killing of Swami. Gandhi said “I have called Abdul Rashid as brother, and I do not even regard him is guilty of the Swami’s murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another”. Why Gandhi was cut off with Swami is- when in 1921 Gandhi called for bonfire of imported British garments, Swamiji told Gandhi instead of burning, the discarded clothes should be distributed among poor. Gandhi rejected the suggestion of Hindu leader while letting the leaders of Khilafat movement send discarded clothes for use by the Muslims of Turkey.
2 Anti-Hindu Pacifism
Gandhi was never moved by sufferings of Hindus. On the contrary, he was quick to offer his sympathy to Muslims. According to his idea of Hindu-Muslim unity, only Hindus were supposed to make sacrifices while enduring all the oppressions and heinous crimes of the Muslims without protest.
When the Hindu population of Bhopal was suffering under the tyrannical rule of the Muslim Nawab, Hindu girls were abducted and raped, Hindu culture was opposed and rapid Islamisation was taking place, what was Gandhi’s reaction “The people of Bhopal are happy under the rule of Nawab. He leads a simple life and Ramraja (righteous king). By the same logic, Gandhi should have asked the Muslim Nizam of Hyderabad to retire, as Hyderabad was Hindu-majority area, but what he stated “ After the British leave India, Nizam of Hyderabad would be the badshah of India.
3 Gaslighting Hindus
Between 1920 and 1947-leading up to the partition of India-there were dozens of Hindu-Muslim riots in different parts of India. What was Gandhi’s advise “ They should generate an atmosphere in which Muslims should be compelled to flee to Pakistan. Hindus and Sikhs should become brave and show that even if all the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan were to be killed, there would be no retaliation in India. If I am to live, I shall ask every Hindu and every Sikh not to touch a single Muslim.”
During his prayer meeting on 1st may 1947, he prepared the Hindus and Sikhs for anticipated massacres of their kind in the upcoming state of Pakistan, with these words “ I would tell the Hindus to faced death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be real sinner if, after being stabbed, I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge.”
When after the partition the riots broke out in Bengal, the Hindus leaders requested Gandhi to visit Bengal to pacify the situation as at that Muslims were killing Hindus and Hindus were not taking action against Muslims in a big way, but Gandhi did not visit Calcutta ( the epicenter of riots). But when Hindus started retaliating and started killing Muslims, Gandhi within few days reached Calcutta to pacify the Hindus and started appeasing Muslims.
There is one more major incidence, which I have read long time back. It was few years before independence, when Gandhi visited a Hindu temple where evening prayer were being carried out, he started reading Quran and started telling people that they should also learn the teachings of Quran. But Hindus present there got so angry with Gandhi and one of their leader said to Gandhi “ We will allow you to read Quran here provided you go to Masjid and read Bhagwat Geeta and other Hindu granth there”. But Gandhi instead of going to Masjid straightway went to nearby police station and lodged FIR against the Hindus. As Gandhi was pampered child of British, the police arrested more than hundreds of Hindus and tortured them and filed a case against them.
4 Indian revolutionaries were frustrated by Gandhi’s tardiness in demanding full freedom. His nonviolence exasperated these leaders because it shielded British from the wrath of Indian people. It has been said by many historian that “ If Gandhi wanted he could have stopped the hanging of Bhagat Singh and others. Just few days before the hanging, there was meeting in which ‘Gandhi-Irwin pact’ was to be discussed and finalized, to everybody’s surprise Gandhi did not talk on Bhagat Singh’s impending hanging”. It seems that Gandhi understood that if Bhagat Singh is pardoned, he would become hero of the masses, and Gandhi’s importance will be affected. As per historians “There was no mass agitation for freedom after 1931. Essentially, Gandhi allowed the British and Muslim separatists a window of 16 years, during which they were able to sell the idea of Pakistan to wider Muslim audience. Gandhi’s policies, therefore, weakened Hindus, destroyed the ancient land of Hindus, and created two Islamic nations ( Pakistan and Bangladesh) on India’s flanks.
In the end, some are born great, others achieve greatness, and some are deceitfully portrayed as great. Gandhi belongs to the last category. For decades, Indian were told how the frail “ Father of Nation” used the weapon of non violence to defeat brutal colonists. School children were taught that in a freedom struggle without precedent or parallel, India achieved independence without firing in anger. Question here is “were the British a race of such conscientious people that they bowed before Gandhi’s non-violent methods and left India”. It was the successive Congress governments after independence who are responsible for spreading all these lies about freedom movement and how it was achieved.
Lastly, I fail to understand how Mahatma Gandhi can be called ‘Father of Nation’, it means that Gandhi was responsible for the birth of India. But the fact is that India (Bharat) existed for thousands of years before even Gandhi was born, so how he can be called ‘Father of our Nation’, yes he can be called Pakistan’s Father of Nation, as he was one of the main person responsible for creation of Pakistan, after partition of India. In fact Congressmen glorified him so much after the independence, and communicated to general public the Gandhi was godly figure who came to this world so that India could achieve freedom from the colonial rule.
There are many more incidences in the past, which reflects Gandhi’s anti Hindu stance, what I have mentioned is just few.
Waiting for your views on this blog.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
13th October 2025