Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: An Academic Reappraisal in the Light of Controversies, Documents, & More

Mahatma Gandhi remains one of the most discussed, revered, and contested figures in modern Indian history. Two extreme tendencies have shaped his public image: one that accepts him uncritically as a moral saint, and another that portrays him as a collaborator of colonial power or as responsible for decisions detrimental to national interests. The responsibility of academic inquiry is to maintain distance from both poles and to present a balanced evaluation grounded in primary sources—especially the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG), contemporary archives, governmental records, and the analyses of established historians.

This essay systematically addresses the major questions often raised about Gandhi—his experience in South Africa, his role in the Boer War, the “Sergeant-Major” controversy, the allegation that patriotism emerged only at the age of forty-six, his support for recruitment during the First World War, claims that he “hijacked” the Champaran movement, his suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement after Chauri Chaura, the Subhas Chandra Bose episode, the issue of the “55 crore rupees” after Partition, and his brahmacharya experiments. When placed in chronological and documentary order, these issues reveal that Gandhi’s public conduct was not linear or static; rather, it evolved amid constant tension between moral idealism, political pragmatism, and mass psychology.

On 7 June 1893, at Pietermaritzburg (Natal, South Africa), Gandhi was removed from a first-class railway compartment despite holding a valid ticket. This incident, described in his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth, is widely regarded as a decisive turning point in his political life. A frequent question arises: Gandhi studied in London (1888–1891), so why did such humiliation occur in South Africa? The answer lies in differing socio-legal contexts. While racial prejudice certainly existed in Britain, South Africa had institutionalized and legally entrenched racial segregation. Thus, the Pietermaritzburg episode reflects not contradiction but distinct manifestations of colonial racism. Gandhi himself does not claim that London was entirely free of racial discomfort; rather, South Africa represented a far harsher and more formalized system of discrimination. During his years there (1893–1914), his activism evolved from petition-based politics to organized resistance and ultimately to satyagraha. Primary references for this phase include CWMG Vols. 1–3 and his autobiography.

Another major controversy concerns Gandhi’s involvement in the Boer War (1899–1902) and the Zulu campaign (1906), along with the oft-cited label “Sergeant-Major Gandhi.” Documentary evidence indicates that Gandhi organized the Indian Ambulance Corps. He was not a combatant soldier; his role was limited to stretcher-bearing and medical assistance. Claims circulating online sometimes exaggerate his military association. While certain references mention “Sergeant-Major,” there is no conclusive evidence of a permanent commissioned military rank in the British Army. At most, such references appear to denote temporary, honorary, or functional positions within a volunteer medical corps. Gandhi’s reasoning at the time was strategic: he believed that if Indians demonstrated loyalty and fulfilled civic duties within the Empire, they would strengthen their moral claim to civil rights. His statement, “Rights are derived from duties well performed,” reflects this phase of reformist engagement within the imperial framework rather than outright anti-colonialism.

A related allegation suggests that Gandhi “suddenly became patriotic” at the age of forty-six in 1915. Historical chronology contradicts this claim. Gandhi was called to the Bar in 1891 and had been politically active in South Africa from 1893 onward, developing satyagraha by 1906. Thus, 1915—when he returned permanently to India—should not be seen as the birth of patriotism but as the beginning of his central leadership role within Indian mass politics.

The issue of Gandhi’s support for recruitment during the First World War remains one of the most debated aspects of his career. Documentary evidence confirms that he encouraged Indian participation during certain phases. Critics argue this contradicts his later advocacy of nonviolence. Supporters interpret it as part of his evolving political thought, at a time when he still sought rights within the imperial structure. His thinking was developmental rather than static. By the 1920s, his stance shifted decisively toward anti-colonial mass resistance. The Quit India Movement of 1942 exemplifies this later phase. To interpret his 1918 recruitment appeals and his 1942 resistance as evidence of unchanging ideology would be historically simplistic. Scholars such as Bipan Chandra have described this as a process of intellectual and political evolution.

The Champaran movement of 1917 is sometimes described in polemical terms as a “hijacking.” Documented evidence shows that Gandhi collected testimonies from indigo farmers, demanded official inquiry, and exerted nonviolent pressure for reform. While critics argue that his emphasis on discipline moderated radical potential, supporters contend that his method broadened participation and laid foundations for mass politics. The debate centers on whether moral discipline limited or strengthened political mobilization.

This tension became most evident after the Chauri Chaura incident (February 1922), when violent protest led to the deaths of policemen. Gandhi suspended the Non-Cooperation Movement, stating that India was not yet prepared for disciplined nonviolence. Critics, including Subhas Chandra Bose, viewed this as a strategic error. Supporters saw it as moral consistency. It is true that Gandhi halted movements following outbreaks of violence; it is inaccurate, however, to claim that such movements produced no results. The Non-Cooperation Movement significantly expanded political consciousness and weakened colonial legitimacy.

The episode involving Subhas Chandra Bose in 1939 further illustrates internal ideological conflict within the Indian National Congress. After Bose defeated Pattabhi Sitaramayya in the presidential election, Gandhi remarked that the latter’s defeat was “my defeat.” However, Bose’s eventual resignation cannot be reduced to Gandhi’s personal intervention alone. Deep differences existed within the Congress Working Committee regarding wartime strategy and organizational direction. The conflict reflected competing visions of resistance—armed international strategy versus disciplined mass nonviolence—rather than mere personal rivalry.

The issue of the “55 crore rupees” transferred to Pakistan after Partition remains contentious. Under the financial terms of Partition, Pakistan was entitled to a total of 75 crore rupees, of which 55 crore were initially withheld amid tensions and the Kashmir conflict. In January 1948, Gandhi undertook a fast in Delhi, emphasizing communal peace and fulfillment of financial commitments. His position was rooted in contractual morality—“A pledge is a pledge.” Critics describe this as political misjudgment or moral pressure; supporters regard it as ethical consistency and defense of state credibility. Archival records indicate that the matter involved collective governmental deliberation rather than unilateral action by Gandhi.

Finally, Gandhi’s brahmacharya experiments constitute one of the most sensitive aspects of his life. He took a vow of celibacy in 1906 and discussed self-restraint openly in his autobiography. Later experiments in self-control during the 1940s generated controversy, and correspondence in CWMG documents contemporary disagreements. Gandhi described these acts as tests of self-discipline and did not conceal them. Academic evaluation requires careful contextual reading of primary sources rather than sensationalized interpretation. Simplistic dismissal or blind defense equally distort historical understanding.

In conclusion, debate over Gandhi does not endure within binaries of devotion versus denunciation. Rather, it rests upon four enduring tensions: strategy versus morality, mass mobilization versus discipline, nation-building versus Partition-era ethics, and private moral experimentation versus public authority. Documentary evidence suggests that Gandhi was neither merely a colonial collaborator nor an infallible moral saint. His life may broadly be understood in three phases: reformist engagement within the Empire (South Africa), mass-based nationalist leadership (especially 1920–1934), and moral intervention during Partition. His decisions reveal evolution and transformation rather than static consistency. A responsible historical study therefore requires evaluation grounded in primary sources and contextual scholarship rather than emotional accusation.

---

Selected Scholarly References

1. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG)
2. Gandhi, M.K. The Story of My Experiments with Truth
3. Judith Brown — Gandhi’s Rise to Power
4. Bipan Chandra — India’s Struggle for Independence
5. Ramachandra Guha — Gandhi Before India
6. B.R. Nanda — Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography
7. Harijan (1939) — Commentary on the Bose election
8. Nehru–Patel Correspondence (1947–48)