Accueil > 20- ENGLISH - MATERIAL AND REVOLUTION > The Real Life of Gandhi and the Myth of Nonviolence
The Real Life of Gandhi and the Myth of Nonviolence
mercredi 6 août 2025, par
The Real Life of Gandhi and the Myth of Nonviolence
The myth of Gandhi is one of the greatest in world history, and one of the most mendacious too. He has been hailed as a hero of independence, a father of the nation, the greatest ascetic and mystic, and above all, the greatest discoverer of a new political and social method, pacifism, which also proved its effectiveness through the birth of independent India. Yes, all of this is completely fabricated, even though many people believe it to be the truth.
Gandhi’s political choices and so-called pacifism
It is worth noting that his early days as a lawyer in South Africa have often been cited as the beginning of his activism, but commentators have deliberately overlooked one point : while Gandhi defended the rights of Indians in South Africa, where they were a middle class supported by the white minority against the blacks, he supported the war of the English colonizer against the Boers, the first white occupants of Dutch origin. This war led the English to use for the first time a real method of mass violence that was as systematic and destructive as it was, with real death camps. Although he had several occasions to observe that the Indians were treated by the English as common coolies and almost like the Blacks, having even been beaten after having had the Indians sign a petition, Gandhi chose to call on the Indians of South Africa to get involved in the conflict alongside the English colonizers and himself personally enlisted in the English armed forces in ambulance forces in the Boer War which began in October 1899. While the Indian community of South Africa had always kept itself away from the conflicts between the English and their adversaries in South Africa, Gandhi personally campaigned, successfully, for the Indians to get involved alongside the English in the war. He set up a corps of ambulances of the English army which earned him an English military medal of the Boer War of which he long said he was proud.
Already in South Africa, he was following the logic that would be his throughout his life in India : not to fight the colonizing adversary through revolution relying on the popular masses, but by trying to convince the colonial power of its own interest in relying on the leaders of the Indian ruling classes.
Another point worth emphasizing is that Gandhi did not go to India to defend the Indian people, but as a lawyer for a large Indian bourgeois firm, the Meman firm of Porhandar, which wanted an Indian lawyer from a close family to handle one of its legal cases.
During his time in South Africa, it should be noted that Gandhi did not see much of the Blacks and was only polarized by the relations of the whites with the Indians. In his "Autobiography", he notes : "While I docked at Durban, a port in Natal, I noticed that there was not much consideration for the Indians." The first fight he led consisted of demanding that Indians be able to travel by train in the carriages reserved for the Whites and not in those reserved for the Blacks... If he very quickly began to campaign for equal rights, it was only in favor of the Indians and not in favor of human rights in general, that is to say the rights of the Blacks !
While Gandhi launched the petition for the right to vote for Natal Indians, he never imagined the same thing in relation to Black people. While he founded the Natal Indian Congress party, of which he became the leader, he never made the slightest move to address or enter into contact with representatives of the Black community. All his gestures were reserved for Whites and the authorities. Gandhi explains in his Autobiography : "The Congress placed itself at the service of Indians from the colony who were already educated. The association was mainly composed of educated young people. The propaganda of the Congress consisted of an effort to make known to the English of South Africa and England and to the Indians of our country the truth about the situation in Natal."
It should be noted that not only is there no mention of Blacks, but also of Boers, the largest communities in the country !
Gandhi’s first pamphlet is significantly titled : "An Appeal to All Englishmen in South Africa" ! The second is "The Right to Vote for Indians."
He then campaigned against a new tax on Indian labor in the sugar cane fields of Natal.
But his feelings towards the colonial power, however oppressive, are always sympathetic. He writes in his Autobiography, in chapter 26 entitled "two passions" :
“I believe I have never known anyone who felt as much loyalty to the British Constitution as I did… At all the meetings I attended in Natal, it was customary to sing God Save the King. I felt it my duty to join my voice with my companions. Not that I was unaware of the imperfections of British rule ; but, on the whole, I judged it acceptable. I believed that English rule was, on the whole, beneficial to those over whom it extended. The racial prejudice, which I could observe in South Africa, was, I told myself, the absolute opposite of English tradition, and I believed that I was dealing with a purely transient and local phenomenon. I therefore vied with the English in loyalty. With diligence and perseverance, I had learned the tune of the “national anthem” and sang it with the others, whenever the opportunity offered. I was eager to seize the slightest opportunity to express my loyalty without ostentatious fuss… Preparations were being made to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee on my return to India. I was invited to be a member of the committee set up for this purpose at Rajkot. I accepted… I had spared neither tenacity nor labor to give an impartial account of the case (the fate of the Indians in South Africa), including the point of view of the white man of South Africa, to which I gave due weight. Experience has shown me that the quickest way to obtain justice is to do justice to the adversary.
On the question of the oppression of black people in South Africa, Gandhi’s own testimony in his "Autobiography" is more than enlightening. He writes :
“At the declaration of war against the Boers, my loyalty to British rule led me to take the side of England in that war. My feeling was that, if I claimed for myself the rights of a British citizen, it was also my duty, as such, to participate in the defense of the British Empire. I considered, then, that India could only achieve complete emancipation within the framework of the Empire, and thanks to it. I therefore gathered together as many comrades as I could and, not without great difficulty, I succeeded in getting their services accepted in the form of an ambulance corps… The general conviction was that we would surely see the redress of the wrongs done to the Indians….
I was practicing in Johannesburg at the time of the "Muting" of the Zulu people in Natal, which occurred shortly after the Boer War. I felt it my duty to offer my services to the Natal Government under such circumstances. We shall see in another chapter that this offer was accepted... I had to give up my home in Johannesburg in order to devote myself to my work during the "Muting".... The "Muting" absorbed no more than six weeks of my life, but this brief period was, in the end, an epoch in my existence..."
Legend has it that Gandhi’s ambulance drivers treated the Zulus as a humanitarian response. But this is to omit what Gandhi himself reported : the English, in addition to treating English soldiers, charged them with treating the Zulus, and only those who were favorable to the English army and some of whom had been injured in the war or in the repression, sometimes even by mistake and racism by that same army :
In his Autobiography, in the chapter "The Zulu Revolt", we can read :
“The newspapers brought us news of the Zulu ’revolt’ in Natal. I had no reason to hold a grudge against the Zulus : they had never harmed an Indian. I had great doubts about this ’revolt’ per se. But I believed that the British Empire existed for the good of the world. A sincere feeling of loyalty prevented me from even wishing that anything bad should happen to the Empire. Whether the ’revolt’ was well or ill-founded, therefore, could not possibly affect my decision. Natal had raised a Volunteer Defence Force, and it was up to them to recruit as many men as possible. The newspapers said that this force had already been mobilized to suppress the ’revolt’. I considered myself a citizen of Natal, given the closeness of my ties to that country. I therefore wrote to the Government to let them know that I was ready, if necessary, to form an Indian Ambulance Corps. They immediately replied, accepting my offer…. I went to Durban and called for volunteers… The Chief Medical Officer appointed me to the temporary rank of Sergeant-Major… Our Corps was on active service for six weeks… I learned at Headquarters that the main part of our work would be to treat the Zulu wounded… The wounded entrusted to us had not received their wounds in combat. A group of them were being held as suspects. The General had sentenced them to be whipped. The whipping had caused serious wounds. As they had not been treated, their wounds were festering. The other wounded were loyal Zulus. Although they had been issued badges to distinguish them from the “enemy,” the soldiers had opened fire on them by mistake. In addition to this work, I had to prepare and dispense the remedies prescribed to the white soldiers. I managed without too much difficulty, given the training I had received. This mission brought me into close contact with many Europeans… The Zulu “revolt” was, for me, a treasure trove of new experiences and gave me much to think about. The Boer War had not allowed me to touch the horrors of war to such an extent : the “revolt” showed them to me in a most stark light. It was not a war at all : it was a manhunt… But I emptied this cup of bitterness, consoling myself with the idea that the mission of my Ambulance Corps was limited to the care of the wounded Zulus…”
When it became clear that Indian participation in the British wars against the Boers and Zulus had not made the English colonists any more receptive to Indian demands, the latter turned against Gandhi, and he reports it thus :
“It was at your insistence that the community provided assistance during the war ; with what result ! – you see it now…
So people harassed me. But in vain.
"I do not regret giving you this advice," I replied. "I maintain that we did well to participate in the war. In doing so, we only fulfilled our duty. Perhaps we should not expect any reward for our efforts ; but it is my firm conviction that every good action eventually bears fruit."
Let us add that the Boer War, which was not enough to open Gandhi’s eyes to the nature of his support for colonialism, was nevertheless one of the worst horrors committed by British imperialism, even if it was an atrocious repression committed by Whites against other Whites, and historians have not been afraid to compare the Boer prisoner camps to the Nazi death camps !
But the war against the Zulu rebellion did not have this effect either. Not only can we not accept the argument about the peaceful nature of the ambulance drivers, especially since Gandhi gave clear political support to the war of colonial power and would do the same in India during the First World War...
When Gandhi returned to India for good in 1914, there was a huge uproar among the Indian people against the British occupation. The founding event for Indian nationalism was not Gandhi’s actions in South Africa, which nevertheless allowed him to build a great reputation, but rather Japan’s victorious war against Russia, the first victory of an Asian people against the European powers, of the Yellows against the Whites, a true revolution in the minds of the colonial slaves of Asia !
While the popular classes and even the ruling classes were attracted by total independence from the colonizer, Gandhi, on the contrary, defended the demands for political and social rights, but under the direction of the British regime, without breaking with the Empire, with the whites, with colonization and without action by the popular masses, without terrorist action either, as organized by the ruling classes of Bengal.
Gandhi himself sets out his views on the First World War in his Autobiography in the chapter "My Role During the War" :
“The declaration of war was dated August 4. It was on the 6th that we landed in London… What was my duty in the face of this war ? We called a public meeting of the Indians residing in Great Britain and Ireland. And I explained to them my point of view. My feeling was that the Indians residing in England had a place to play in the war. English students enlisted as volunteers in the army ; the Indians could do no less. This reasoning aroused a certain number of objections. There was, it was maintained, a world of difference between Indians and Englishmen. The latter were the masters ; we were only the slaves. How could the slave collaborate with the master, in circumstances critical for the latter ? Was it not the duty of the slave, who seeks freedom, to take advantage, on the contrary, of the critical position of the master ? At the time, this argument aroused no resonance in me. I was perfectly aware of the difference in status between the Indian and the Englishman ; but I still refused to believe that we had been entirely enslaved. It seemed to me, then, that the fault lay far more with this or that isolated British official than with the English imperial system, and that love, as opposed to hatred, would enable us to convert these individuals. If we wished to improve our status by appealing to the aid and cooperation of the British, our duty required that, in order to gain their support, we should be with them in these difficult hours. No doubt the system in question was not without its faults ; but it did not appear intolerable to the extent that it has become to me today...
I felt that we should not take advantage of England’s difficulties, and that dignity and foresight required, on the contrary, that we should not emphasize our demands while the war lasted. I therefore persisted in my opinion and invited all volunteers to enlist. The response was good : almost all provinces and all religions were represented among the volunteers...
It is a fact that the same kind of reasoning that had convinced me to participate in the Boer War had drawn me in again this time. It was not at all clear to me that participating in a war was absolutely incompatible with my profession of faith in non-violence (ahimsa). But it is not always given to see with the same clarity where duty lies. He who has dedicated himself to the truth can often do nothing but grope in the dark.
The principle of non-violence is vast and flexible. We are only poor, defenseless mortals caught in the immense clash of the forces of violence (himsa). The saying that life feeds on life has a profound meaning. Man cannot live a single moment without performing an outward act of violence (himsa), consciously or not. The very fact that he lives—that he eats, drinks, and moves around—necessarily involves a measure of himsa, of destruction of life, however minute. One who has taken the vow of ahimsa thus remains faithful to his faith if all his actions are motivated by compassion, if he applies himself as best he can to avoid destroying even the tiniest living being, if he strives to spare all living things and thus struggles tirelessly to free himself from the deadly grasp of the forces of himsa. Restraint and compassion will continue to grow in him ; which does not prevent him from ever being able to free himself entirely and not commit acts of himsâ outwardly.
We see the whole Jesuitism of Gandhi’s position, which advocates non-violence towards all animal life and... the English but violence towards the Boers, the Zulus and the enemies of the English in the world war and manages to justify all this in the name of a theosophy of respect for all life....
Non-violence, Gandhi, knew perfectly well how to violate it and not for philosophical reasons but for political interest, that of the future of Indians as the ruling class of his future country, and the life of human beings (or living beings) did not stop him in his political calculations to achieve it…. He had chosen collaboration with the English and even when he was going to choose a form of combat against them, he was not going to change fundamentally : hiding behind philosophical principles to camouflage the interests of the Indian ruling classes…
He explains it himself :
"I had placed my hope in the British Empire to obtain, for myself and for my people, a better status. While I was in England, I enjoyed the protection of the British Fleet, and seeking asylum as I did, within its armed force, I therefore participated directly in its potential for violence. If, therefore, I wished not to break ties with the Empire and to live under its banner, three roads lay before me : I could either proclaim my will to openly oppose the war and, in accordance with the law of Satyagraha (passive resistance), boycott the Empire until it had changed its military policy—or go to prison by civil disobedience to such Imperial laws as lent themselves to it—or take my side in the war on the side of the Empire, and thereby acquire the necessary titles and qualifications which would enable me to oppose the war. I lacked qualifications and skills : I therefore felt that there was no other solution than to take up service.
The greatest massacre of humankind was looming, and Gandhi, the nonviolent man, saw no other solution than to participate actively, voluntarily, and consciously... out of political calculation. This is where his so-called philosophy of nonviolence led...
This time, Gandhi was in favour of participation and not only as ambulance drivers and he also found justifications for this reversal of position (quoted from the same work in the same chapter) :
“From the point of view of ahimsa, I make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Anyone who voluntarily places himself at the service of a band of bandits, either as a porter, or to keep watch while they are at their business, or to treat them when they are wounded, is as guilty of banditry as the bandits themselves. Similarly, those who merely treat the wounded on the battlefield cannot be absolved of the crime of war…. I came to the conclusion that it was my duty to serve in this war. Even today, I do not find the slightest flaw in this reasoning ; nor do I regret my action – even if I was not, at that time, in favor in my way of thinking, of ties with England ?”
As we see, Gandhi did not regret this policy of participating in the great global slaughter of peoples, and it is the great Mahatma who speaks here. But when he made his decision, he was already the Brahmin, abandoning material advantages for pure wisdom, abandoning the questioning of all forms of animal life, the one he would not cease to be afterward. It was therefore with the entirety of his point of view as a great mystic of Hinduism that he made the decision to participate in the most murderous war in History, an active, political, personal and collective participation, following the war and even calling for it...
The subsequent evidence that the colonial authorities continued to treat Indian soldiers or ambulance drivers, regimented in the British army, like cattle, was not enough to change Gandhi’s mind. He was content to stay out of the matter and devoted himself to setting up his personal ashram...
He intervened in a labor dispute in 1917, when the whole country was beginning to explode with demands. Certainly, he supported the strike but by demanding that the explosive situation not develop, that the strikers remain peacefully folded arms, without attacking the scabs, the bosses, without broadening their action, etc. The strike then failed and Gandhi went on a hunger strike to denounce... the betrayal of the strikers who had abandoned the strike under the pretext that they could no longer feed their families. But, throughout his intervention in the strike, Gandhi remained a personal friend of the bosses of the striking workers. The best way to understand Gandhi is still to quote him in these events in his Autobiography, in his chapter "Contacts with the Proletariat" where he explains how he intervened at the request of the brothers who were spinner bosses, Shrîmati Anasouyâbâi and Sjt Ambâlâl Sârâbhâi about whom Gandhi specifies :
"As I have already indicated in a previous chapter, I maintained close and cordial relations with the spinning bosses."
This is how Gandhi intervened in the strike by pretending to be the leader of the workers when he had come there at the request of the bosses :
“A letter arrived from Shrimati Anasuyabi about the unrest of the workers in Ahmedabad. Wages were low ; the workers had been agitating for a long time, demanding a raise, and I wanted to guide them if I could… I took the first opportunity that presented itself to leave for Ahmedabad… Shrimati Anasuyabi’s own brother, St. Ambalal Sarabhai, was fighting at the head, as champion, of the spinning bosses. I had friendly relations with them, and this complicated the struggle considerably. I conferred with them… I explained to the workers the conditions without which I could not support them :
1) Never resort to violence
2) Never molest the “yellows”
3) Never depend on public solidarity
4) Never give up, however long the strike may be, by doing other work during the strike to earn one’s bread, by engaging in any other honorable work.
The strike leaders understood and accepted my conditions.
I also demanded that the aim of the strike not be the increase but that the bosses simply agree to take the dispute to an arbitration tribunal...
Every day, there was a public meeting of the strikers in the shade of a tree on the bank of the Sabarmati. Thousands of them came to these meetings, and in the speeches, I reminded them of their oath and their duty : to maintain calm and personal dignity. Every day, they marched through the streets of the city in a peaceful procession… The strike lasted twenty-one days. During all this time, I went to see the bosses from time to time… During the first two weeks of the strike of the spinning workers of Ahmedabad, the workers of the spinning mills showed great courage and moderation and held massive public meetings daily. On each of these occasions, I reminded them of their oath, and they assured me in return, with their cries, that they would rather die than break their word.
But at last they showed signs of relaxation. Just as physical weakness manifests itself in man by irritability of temper, their attitude toward the "scabs" became more and more threatening, as the strike seemed to weaken ; and I began to fear an outbreak of violence on their part. Attendance at the daily meetings also began to gradually decline, and despondency and despair were written on the faces of those who continued to come.
Finally, I was brought the news that the strikers had begun to give up...
Instead of seeing a flaw in the policy he proposed to the strikers, Gandhi found a way to make them feel guilty in their own eyes instead of turning against the policy he had made them follow :
“I couldn’t see my path clearly… The words came to my lips :
If, I declared to the assembled men, the strikers do not pull themselves together and continue the strike until an agreement is reached, or until they leave the factories for good, I will take no more food.
The workers were literally stunned. Tears began to flow down Anasoyâbehn’s cheeks. From all sides, shouts rose up :
It is not for you, it is for us to fast. It would be a monstrosity if you were to fast. We beg you, forgive us our failure ; we now wish to remain faithful to our oath until the end…
One might wonder whether Gandhi is not helping the workers to regain courage and whether his hunger strike is not a way to attack the bosses and support the workers, but Gandhi himself, in his work, removes this illusion in a passage that we have already partially quoted :
“My fast was not without a serious underlying flaw. For, as I indicated in a previous chapter, I maintained close and cordial relations with the spinning mill owners, and my fast could only influence their decision. As a satyagrahi (supporter of passive resistance), I knew that my fast had no right to be directed against them, but that I had to leave them free to submit to only one pressure, that of the workers. My fast was not due to a lack of word from the owners, but rather to the failure of the workers – a failure with which I felt associated, because I was their representative. With the owners, I could only plead ; to direct my fast against them would have amounted to coercion…
I tried to put the bosses at ease :
Don’t feel obliged to retreat, I told them...
The man who was most responsible for the bosses’ inflexible attitude toward the strike was Sheth Ambalal. His resolve, his will, his clear sincerity were extraordinary and won my heart… The difficult position in which my fast placed the bosses’ opposition – of which he was the leader – therefore wounded me deeply….
One might think that Gandhi would want the workers to take up his hunger strike action since he is a supporter of this type of action. Not at all ! Here is how he explains it :
"Anasouyâbehn and a number of other friends and workers shared my fast on the first day. But, not without difficulty, I managed to dissuade them from continuing."
Gandhi did not want his fast to be seen as an action by workers against their bosses. Here is how he described the result of his fast : having stopped the struggle !
“The benefit of all this was that an atmosphere of goodwill emerged on both sides. The employers were deeply moved and decided to look for a way to settle the dispute… The strike ended – I had only fasted for three days. The employers celebrated the event by distributing sweets to the workers. Thus, a settlement was reached after twenty-one days of strike action. The employers and the Commissioner were present at the public meeting held to celebrate the agreement. To the mill workers, the Commissioner gave the following advice :
You should make it a principle to always regulate your actions by the advice of Mr. Gandhi."
Congratulations that are all the more understandable since the primary demands of the workers are no longer a question !
Gandhi’s method of social struggle, as commented on by himself, takes on a particularly sinister light...
And support for the British Empire continued to be advocated by Gandhi. On the occasion of the Viceroy of India’s Conference with Indian political leaders, a conference aimed at mobilizing all of India’s resources for the British war, which took place on April 26, 1918, in Delhi, Gandhi wrote a letter to the Viceroy in which he renewed his support for the Empire in the world war despite the opposing positions of many Indian political leaders (in particular the development of the campaign for Home Rule in India adopted by the Congress party) and despite the horrors committed during this war and the continuation of the horrors of colonization, particularly in India, in no way mitigated by the war :
“I recognize that in this grave conjuncture we must, as we have resolved to do, give unequivocal and generous aid to the Empire, with which we aspire to become, in the near future, associates on an equal footing with the Dominions beyond the seas… If it were in my power to induce my countrymen to reconsider, I would persuade them to withdraw all the resolutions adopted by Congress, and to cease all propaganda in favor of “Home Rule” or “Responsible Government” while this war lasts. I would persuade India to offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at such a critical hour ; and I know that India, by this very act, would become the most favored associate of the Empire, and that racial distinctions would be a thing of the past. But almost the entire educated section of India has decided to choose a less effective route, and it is no longer possible to say that this section of India is without influence over the masses… These are minds attentive and conscious enough to understand that they must be prepared, in equal measure, to sacrifice themselves for the Empire, within which they hope and desire at last to find their definitive status. It follows that we can only accelerate our march towards this goal, by devoting ourselves, in silence and simplicity, heart and soul, to the work of delivering the Empire from the danger that threatens it. It would be national suicide not to recognize this elementary truth… I write these words because I love the English nation with love and my desire is to evoke in every Indian the image of the loyalty of the English people.
But Gandhi’s efforts to prevent the people of India from confronting the colonizer were ineffective. Bengal, in particular, had begun an insurrection to end colonialism, and all of India was in turmoil. The colonizer’s response was brutal. Following the Rowlatt Commission’s report, a law was enacted deeming any act against colonization to be terrorism and any mobilization punishable as a crime.
Gandhi will use all his influence to avoid confrontation and, first of all, to pretend that he is taking the lead in order to slow it down. To this end, he launches a one-day peaceful general strike followed by a 24-hour fast. But, at the last minute, he cancels the movement, which only takes place in Punjab. Then, in the face of its massive success, he calls for peaceful disobedience, demanding that participants not directly attack the forces of repression, even if they commit mass murders against the demonstrators. Faced with the clashes that still take place, Gandhi practices personal days of fasting in which he punishes himself for the fact that the demonstrators did not respect his instructions for pacifism in the face of the British troops who massacre without restraint. He denounces any insurrectional action by the Indian masses. He himself explains that, when the authorities are truly overwhelmed by the insurrection, they call on him to restore peace :
“There had been disturbances in Ahmedabad… The workers in the spinning mills, when the rumour spread that Anasouyâbehn had also been arrested, had lost all self-control, stopped work and committed acts of violence : a sergeant had died there.
I left for Ahmedabad. I learned that an attempt had been made to tear up the rails not far from the Nariyad station, that a government official had been murdered at Viramgham, and that martial law had been declared in Ahmedabad...
One might think that Gandhi came to support the struggle, to discuss with its leaders and make his proposals to them. Not at all ! He came to see the forces of repression and the colonizer and make his proposals to them :
“I met Mr. Pratt, the Commissioner… I spoke to him gently and expressed my regret for the disturbances. I suggested that martial law was unnecessary and declared myself ready to cooperate in any effort to restore calm. I asked permission to hold a public meeting within the precincts of the Sabarmati Ashram. The idea pleased him ; the meeting was held on a Sunday. On the same day, or the following day, the state of siege was lifted. Addressing the public meeting, I tried to impress upon the people the feeling that they had been in the wrong ; I decreed for myself a three-day fast of penance ; I appealed to the people to fast also for twenty-four hours, and I proposed that those who had been guilty of acts of violence should confess their guilt.”
As we can see, Gandhi’s fasts do not mean that he uses them as a non-violent weapon against colonialism, but rather as a weapon against the revolutionary violence of the masses revolted by colonialism !
As we saw in the war, the so-called non-violent tactic did not exclude the use of violence for Gandhi. On August 11, 1920, to take the lead of the revolt movement, he even called in his newspaper "Young India" for violent struggle against the colonizer, but this was to better direct it towards compromise and a return to calm !
More than ever, despite the violence of the colonial forces, Gandhi reaffirms his so-called "non-violent" and pro-order positions :
“Before one can practice civil disobedience, one must have voluntarily and respectfully obeyed the laws of the State. Most of us obey these laws out of fear of the penalties for contravention ; and this remark is particularly true of those laws which do not imply any moral principle…. Such compliance has nothing in common with the freely consented and spontaneous obedience demanded of a satyagrahi. The satyagrahi obeys the laws of society intelligently and of his own accord, because he considers this attitude a sacred duty.”
And Gandhi goes on to say that he is sorry for having made a great mistake in calling people to civil disobedience when they were not yet capable of participating peacefully :
"My mistake lay in the fact that I had not been able to observe this necessary limit. I had launched the call for civil disobedience to the people before they were qualified to respond to it, and this error appeared to me in its magnitude, as big as the Himalayas."
It is now up to Gandhi, who has emerged as the leader of the protest through his own initiative, to take the initiative to end the movement, by announcing that it is only a postponement and that we will prepare better next time :
"I realized that before a people could practice civil disobedience, they must fully understand its innermost meaning. That being so, before launching into civil disobedience again on a mass scale, it was necessary to form a group of well-tested and pure-hearted volunteers who fully understood the rigors of Satyagraha. They could explain these rigors to the people and, by constant vigilance, keep them on the straight and narrow."
Far from setting the struggle as the goal of the fight against the injustices and violence of colonization, Gandhi launched in 1921 the campaign for... the spinning wheel ! He thus gave as the flag for the struggle, the return to traditionalism and to the old Indian society...
This meant a return to handmade Indian cloth and a refusal to buy foreign products, thus providing a foundation for thoroughly reactionary nationalism. The Indian Congress then rallied for the first time to his proposal for civil disobedience. The colonial power immediately responded with repression and mass arrests, and the Indian people responded with an escalation of struggle. Gandhi once again learned that the people were immature. Once again, he called off the movement on February 12, 1922, and punished himself for the violence by forcing himself to fast as a penance. From then on, Gandhi traveled across India, first and foremost promoting the spinning wheel and handloom weaving…
While in 1930, the whole country was beginning to take sides for independence, Gandhi chose to launch the Congress on another objective : the abolition of the salt tax… It was a question of calling on Indians to collect salt from the seaside without paying the salt tax. From May to December 1930, there were 100,000 arrests, including all the leaders of the Congress party. Far from calming the population, this arrest took away from the Indian people the main conduits of the social movement and on January 26, 1931, Gandhi and about thirty leaders were released unconditionally.
Far from sticking to the positions of the movement he himself had launched, Gandhi then signed a political agreement with Lord Irwin on March 4, 1931. The Indian people had achieved nothing, and this agreement was merely a respite for the colonizer. Many radical nationalist activists then booed Gandhi, even though the leaders of the nationalist bourgeoisie who commanded the Congress maintained their support for him.
Many times, he took the lead in the rising discontent and then, faced with the explosive nature of the movement, apologized for the violence, stopped the struggle, led a fast, was momentarily discredited by the halting of the movement and recredited by his arrest by the colonial power. This movement of advance and retreat, of mass struggle followed by halting, of fasting of repentance took place in 1932 and 1933 as in 1931… In 1934, the English Parliament modified the status of India without satisfying a single nationalist demand, but Gandhi affirmed that he had confidence in the process and supported the politicians who participated in it, thus remaining on the right of the Congress party. Then followed a phase where Gandhi withdrew from the Congress party and played the role of an influential personality but kept himself outside the political mainstream. In 1935, social revolution rumbled in the small state of Rajkot. The people of this state were in insurrection to overthrow the sovereign. Gandhi comes out of his relative retirement to save this sovereign... From March 3 to 7, he practices a new fast to push the people towards peace and negotiation with the rajah. As we see, his solidarity never extended to the revolutionary efforts of the Indian people...
In the meantime, Gandhi had changed his attitude towards England. He had spoken at length with Mussolini, exchanged letters with Hitler, and viewed the coming world war differently than he had the first.
He agreed to participate in the British war effort on the condition that the defense of Indian territory be handed over to Indian forces, which England refused. Gandhi and the Congress party therefore refused to support Britain at war. Gandhi then campaigned against Indian participation in the war, but it can be seen that this was not at all a question of applying any principle of non-violence.
We have chosen to begin this text with Gandhi’s political actions and declarations because it is these and the weight he had in the struggle of the Indian people that made him known. But he never ceased to emphasize that he considered these facts to be less important to him than his private actions linked to his religious and moral conceptions. We will now examine what non-violence means on the religious and moral level for Gandhi and we will see that this conception is ultra reactionary and in reality very violent... I believe that this violence is demonstrated by the quotes from Gandhi himself, a violence towards his own feelings, his tastes, his body, his health, his wife and his children... Everyone will be able to judge this by reading it.
Gandhi always explained that what was most important to him was his own journey toward the purity of a sage of faith, an evolution in which he intended to lead his small community, his ashram, and especially his family. His social and political choices, he said, stemmed from his religious and moral convictions. He explains that his idea of Satyagraha, or passive resistance, stems from his choices as a Brahmin :
“Today it is clear to me that all the principal events of my life, culminating in the vow of brahmacharya, were secretly preparing me for this end. The principle, which bears the name of Satyagraha, came into being even before the name for it had been found… In Gujarati itself, we used the English expression “passive resistance” to describe this principle… It was Maganlal Gandhi who coined the word “Sadagraha” (from sat = truth and âgraha = firmness)… But for the sake of clarity, I changed the word to “Satyagraha” which has since become a common term in Gujarati to designate our struggle.”
Therefore, the political and social action described above is inseparable from the philosophical and practical choices of the Brahmin Gandhi.
For Gandhi, the discovery of his principles and their application had essentially an interior, personal and then domestic character, linked to his close circle, well before taking on a character of public defense of principles of life that Gandhi would summarize by a philosophy of "restraint" that he called "my domestic satyagraha"... We find there restraint in the face of sensations, feelings, material, sexual, mental needs, as well as in social and political action.
But, in fact, the term restraint, chosen by Gandhi, does not reflect his actions well. It should rather be said repression, inhibition, prohibition, refusal of spontaneous tendencies, rejection of one’s own natural reactions, and in all this, violence towards oneself as well as towards others....
It’s not just fasting, the rejection of sexual pleasure, the rejection of pleasures in general, the rejection of all food outside of vegetarianism, the rejection of material goods. There is also the rejection of medical care, the rejection of technical progress, the rejection of the conveniences linked to material progress. Gandhi chooses to prefer everything that causes suffering, everything that is harder, everything that can cause suffering, even to the point of death... This is what I call violence towards himself and towards others. He prefers that his wife give birth without a midwife. He prefers to refuse medical care for himself and for his family, at the risk of his life and theirs. He even insists on having done so, specifying that he voluntarily chose to take this risk to test his faith. It is such mystical choices that are in fact antihuman and not wise as Gandhi’s followers claim.
Gandhi did not simply follow tradition. He was not raised in a specific religious belief or was he very observant, which meant that he spent a long time exploring all religions, including Christianity, Protestantism, Islam, and the religions of India. He finally converted to Brahmanism in 1906 and spent the rest of his life seeking to become a wise Brahmin, detached from worldly goals.
He himself sets out his goals in his Autobiography in the chapter “Brahmacharya” :
“Brahmacharya is the control of the senses, in thought, word, and deed… The aspirant to brahmacharya will never cease to be aware of his shortcomings, will never cease to hunt down the passions that still creep in the darkest recesses of his heart, and will struggle tirelessly to rid himself of them.”
Human love is therefore the main adversary of the wise man as conceived by Gandhi...
And it begins with a man’s love for a woman, even if it is his own wife...
This continues with the fact that the soul must detach itself from the body, giving equality of spirit. Detachment from material goods is an important point. The goal must be to move towards non-material possessions to achieve equality of soul. There is first a return to simplicity in clothing, care, food, needs. But it is not only material goods : one must go as far as a certain insensitivity to what loved ones and other people do…
He stated : "I became convinced that procreation and, consequently, concern for children are incompatible with devotion to the public interest."
For my part, I would point out that he acquired this certainty at the moment when he chose to devote himself... to the interests of the British Empire by joining it during the Zulu revolt in the English army of Natal ! Indeed, the previously quoted sentence is followed by this one : "I had to give up my home in Johannesburg to be able to devote myself to my "task" during the Revolt."
He adds : "During the difficult marches we had to make then, the idea suddenly dawned on me that, if I wished to devote myself thus to the service of the community, I must abjure all desire to have children and to enrich myself, and lead the life of a wandering monk - a man who abstracts himself from the worries of a home. The Revolt did not absorb more than six weeks of my life, but this brief period ultimately marked an epoch in my existence. The importance of vows imposed itself more clearly than ever on my mind. I realized that a vow, far from closing the door to true freedom, opened it... I realized that by refusing to vow, man allowed himself to be drawn into temptation."
So, as we see, his participation in a war of racial extermination and alongside anti-Black racist troops was his mystical and psychological revelation. That alone says a lot...
And the fact that these six weeks took place in the face of unprecedented violence, in its scale, in its anti-human character, in its horror, does not even come under his pen on this occasion. On that point, not a word about the horror of the violence...
His second thought as a Brahmin student is that he must abandon all physical relations with his wife :
“It seemed like a strange thing to cut off all carnal relations with one’s wife. But I took the plunge, putting my faith in God and His strength to sustain me.”
By the way, one might wonder why he came up with the idea of doing this. Here is Gandhi’s reply :
“The couple will never perform the act of sexual union to satisfy carnal desire, but only at those times when they desire a child. I consider it the height of ignorance to believe that the sexual act is an independent and necessary function like sleeping or eating. The world depends for its existence on the act of procreation ; and, as the world is God’s playground and the mirror in which His Glory is reflected, the act of procreation must be controlled so that the growth of the world may take place in order. Whoever understands this well will master carnal desire at all costs, will equip themselves with the knowledge necessary for the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of their offspring, and will extend the benefit of this knowledge to their posterity.”
This means that Gandhi forbade himself from any action related to sexual pleasure, forbade it to his wife and children, as well as to anyone who wanted to live near him...
Gandhi points out that the child has no future other than that of his parents :
"A child will never learn as much as in the first five years of his life, when everything he does and thinks depends entirely on his parents."
Gandhi’s understanding of his family relationships is described in the chapter "A Memory Sacred to Me" :
"Far from being content to see my wife carrying the vases of urine (of the strangers received in her house), I would have liked her to carry out her task joyfully. And I said to her, raising my voice :
I will not tolerate this kind of nonsense in my house !
These words pierced her like a spear.
Keep it to yourself, your house, and let me go ! she shouted back.
I set about opening the gate, intending to throw her out. She was crying her eyes out.
"You have no shame !" she shouted. "How can you forget yourself to this extent ? Where do you want me to go ? I have no parents, no relatives here to receive me. Because I am your wife, you think I must put up with you hitting me with your fists and feet ? For heaven’s sake, restrain yourself and close this gate ! Let no one see us making such a scene !"
And Gandhi explains that it is this argument that decided him, but he uses it above all to affirm :
"Let it suffice for me to say here that, with the gradual disappearance of carnal appetites, my domestic life has become, and continues to become, more and more peaceful, sweet, and happy."
So understand that men who have not renounced all sexual relations outside of procreation are justified in behaving like barbarians with women !!!!
And Gandhi continues this chapter thus :
“Let no one conclude from this recalling of a sacred memory that we are in the least an ideal couple, or that there exists between us a complete identity of ideal and thought. My wife Kastourbai herself is perhaps unable to say whether she has, independently of me, an ideal or an idea. It is probable that many of my actions do not have her approval, even at the present time. We never discuss them ; I am not the property of such discussions. But she has, thank God, one great quality, and this to a considerable degree—a quality which all Hindu wives possess to some extent : willingly or unwillingly, consciously or not, she has considered it a blessing for her to follow in my footsteps, and she has never thwarted me in my efforts to lead a life of restraint. So that, despite the abyss that separates us, intellectually, I have always had the feeling that our existence was all about contentment, happiness and progress.
But, as he himself said, we cannot know if his wife has the same feeling because Gandhi does not care : Hindu women are "fortunately" submissive enough not to oppose....
If this is not violence in relationships….
Those who are still not convinced should read this in his second chapter "Brahmacharya" :
"The devotion of a servant seems to me a thousand times more worthy of praise than that of a wife to her husband. This latter sentiment is not surprising, given the indissoluble bonds that unite the couple. Whereas nurturing equal devotion between master and servant required a very special effort..."
We can say : well, Gandhi suffered from the prejudices of the men of his time, in his country, that’s clear, but he was a courageous fighter on other issues. He confronted caste prejudices, for example, which was remarkable in the India of the time.
Indeed, he very quickly had to submit to the dictates of his caste, which forbade him from studying abroad, and he defied this decision and the resulting excommunication. Once again, it is Gandhi who takes it upon himself to set this story straight : Gandhi was careful not to confront his caste, and he prides himself on this as a special intelligence, that of never confronting the adversary head-on, which he would then apply in all circumstances, such as when facing the colonizer...
Let us quote him :
“I scrupulously avoided hurting their feelings. I fully respected the caste rules regarding excommunication. According to these rules, no member of my relatives, including my father-in-law and mother-in-law, and even my sister and brother-in-law, had the right to receive me ; and I refused to touch even a drop of water in their house in order to respect the decision of the caste… The result of this scrupulous conduct was that I never had any trouble with my caste – nay, I have never received anything but affection and generosity from the great majority of the clan, who still consider me an excommunicate.”
Be careful : this is not humor on his part, but a profound behavioral choice.
He adds :
"I am convinced that all these good results were due to my lack of resistance."
If Gandhi also frequently advocated non-resistance to the English, be assured that colonialism would never have chosen to leave India without the revolutionary explosion that threatened the colony after the Second World War...
If the non-resistance to caste advocated by Gandhi had a result, it is the one we know today in India : the Indian bourgeoisie took power but it did not at all eliminate all the previous attributes of oppression including the oppression of caste, clan, feudalism, religion and the oppression of women too...
Among the reactionary ideas propagated by Gandhi, including the return to the spinning wheel and hand-loom weaving, it is worth mentioning the rejection of medicine, the rejection of university, high school and school, the return to old-fashioned domestic work, done by hand, without technical means, the rejection of any technology that was even slightly modern, the rejection of any human relationship that was not strictly directed by the religious and moralist spirit....
Finally, let’s talk about respect for all animal life, which underpins the entire Gandhian philosophy and which we saw at work when it came to human beings in the South African wars against the Boers, the Zulus, and other Africans, and in the world wars. There, killing was not an absolute prohibition. On the other hand, killing a sheep is :
"For me, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a man. I would never consent to sacrifice the life of a lamb to the human body."
On the other hand, in India, where starvation was extremely common at the time, he doesn’t think human life is worth thinking about again...
For this mystic, dying is nothing ! Except for a lamb, because what matters is not living but remaining pure...
Well, I would conclude by saying that this so-called philosophy of non-violence is ultra violent towards human beings, that it has considerably delayed the liberation of Indian colonial slaves and brought it to the worst conditions...
One of the great myths constructed by Gandhi’s propagandists is that India’s independence was won through peaceful protests led by the ’Mahatma’. The reality is different. On the one hand, as long as Britain wanted to keep India and maintain its repression, including violent repression, it was able to contain and disregard Gandhi’s movement. On the other hand, after World War II, Britain was simply no longer able to maintain its dominance over India. Britain emerged in debt and ravaged by war. But as long as British capital could continue to exploit the regions dominated by Britain, the British state could evacuate its colonies and grant independence.
In India, British rule was threatened by radical mass struggles, most of which had nothing to do with Gandhi. Had Britain attempted to maintain its physical presence, these mass struggles would have become even more radical, threatening capitalism itself. What were these forms of struggle ?
Under the influence of the Russian Revolution, a section of advanced Indian nationalists was drawn to Marxism, and a Communist Party was established. The CP, along with other revolutionary organizations and militant trade unions, gained momentum in the late 1920s, which saw a series of peasant uprisings. With the outbreak of World War II, a new wave of peasant revolts and strikes swept through, along with a rise in independence forces—things that have been completely erased from the official portrait of Indian independence. The Indian National Congress had been marginalized by the growth of revolutionary forces and by its inability to cope with the repression unleashed by the British in the Amritsar massacre of 1919.
Gandhi launched salt satyagraha [a nonviolent resistance movement against the British salt monopoly] in the early 1930s, partly to regain influence within Congress. During World War II, to regain the initiative in the face of much more radical mass activity, Congress raised the slogan ’Quit India’ in 1942.
However, it was the continuation of mass struggles that brought an end to British rule. At the end of the war, there was a massive strike movement, during which 1,700 people were killed by the colonial police. There were mass mutinies of Indian sailors, and resistance to British rule was growing in the Indian armed forces. Radical peasant organizations and trade unions were growing in size and influence, and armed action was becoming increasingly common. In Bengal, women played a significant role in armed groups.
The English colonizers, noting that there was an irresistible revolutionary movement, preferred to cede power themselves to the bourgeois nationalists of the Congress with whom they attempted agreements to preserve their economic interests rather than risk the popular masses becoming inflamed. The Labour Party, Major Attlee, who succeeded Churchill, declared that he feared a revolutionary uprising of the masses in India and that is how he very quickly obtained the agreement of the English bourgeoisie to quickly grant independence, something England had absolutely not envisaged a year earlier. In October 1946, he explained to the House that any delay in gaining independence would cause serious revolutionary unrest, according to the report of the ministerial mission he had sent there, and that, according to him, it would be useless and impossible to bring sufficient reinforcements there. It is certain that the English population, which demanded first and foremost its demobilization and which had just brought down Churchill, the representative of all the sacrifices made in the name of the war effort, did not feel ready to shed its blood to fight against the rebellious population of India. And in February 47 in the House of Lords Pethic-Lawrence declared that it had already been too late and that in his words "there exists in India a situation and an extreme revolutionary danger, that if the transfer of power does not take place in the short term the revolution whose eruption was momentarily delayed by the announcement of the preparation for independence by the ministerial mission will inevitably break out." The Burmese example shows the usefulness of moving towards independence which allowed in January 1947 a rapprochement between England and the nationalist Ang San which allowed them to break the alliance between the moderate and radical nationalists.
In India, the undisputed leadership of the national bourgeoisie is Gandhi’s Congress Party. Its position is characteristic with respect to the working class : no trade union independence. Thus, the only trade union organization linked to it, that of the Ahmedabad textile workers, which is linked to it, is organized as a union within the party separately from the rest of the workers’ movement, which belongs to a unified federation bringing together all the other trade unionists from Stalinists to reformists and radical activists. The organized workers’ movement has as many members as the Congress Party, i.e. 400,000 members each in 1935. But the more the political demand becomes preponderant, the more the distance increases in favor of the bourgeois nationalist formation due to the lack of a policy for the workers’ movement. Directly linked to landowners, industrialists and merchants, the Congress Party is reluctant to include any social measures, including an agrarian program, in its demands, which would leave enormous room for a revolutionary workers’ movement to address a peasantry in revolt. Any movement of a revolutionary nature against English imperialism would inevitably overwhelm the bourgeois political movement since the latter prohibits any armed insurrection against the English.
The year 1946 was marked by the rise of workers’ struggles and a true revolutionary maturation that began with a military mutiny. Sailors from a training barracks in Bombay demonstrated their discontent on February 18, 1946. The next day, there was already a real uprising of more than 20,000 sailors stationed in Bombay and 20 ships anchored in the port. The revolted sailors elected a central strike committee. And in Karachi, similar unrest occurred. Faced with the threat of violent repression, the central strike committee of the fleet appealed to the workers. The Congress Party and the Muslim League, the bourgeois independence organizations, refused to support the uprising. On February 22 and 23, the battle raged in Bombay, where the working population who had sided with the mutineers were violently repressed : 250 deaths. The Congress Party and the Muslim League finally forced the sailors to surrender, and the strike committee declared : "We surrender to India, but not to England." The mutineers were severely condemned by the bourgeois parties. Gandhi called them "scum" and an unholy combination of Hindus and Muslims. The Muslim leaders declared that the fleet must be disciplined. This was the common point that these bourgeois parties had with England : the common fear of the outbreak of a revolutionary mass movement. And this at a time when unrest was also taking place in the British army in India. The Tommies, who wanted to return home more quickly and sensed that things were about to heat up, demonstrated to return to England more quickly, whether in Delhi or Uttar Pradesh. At the same time, the workers’ strike struggles were at their highest point ever, with the insurrectional strike of two million workers in a climate of extraordinary tension.
To divert these nationalist groups, the Muslim League and the Hindu Masahabha organized inter-ethnic opposition demonstrations, mainly in Bengal and Bihar, with bloody clashes between religious communities. The Muslim League announced that it was demanding the partition of the country on religious grounds, with Hindus on one side and Muslims on the other. This idea had actually been discussed by the League in London, and it was British imperialism itself that suggested it to divert discontent.
Despite the repression and racist diversions, in the months that followed, the country plunged into uprising and chaos. In entire regions, no one obeyed the colonialist administration anymore. Under these conditions, England accelerated the plan for accession to independence at full speed. Signed in early July 1947, the partition plan in India and Pakistan was adopted on July 18 and the new power installed on August 15, 1947. Never before had a colonial power been seen in such a hurry to give up its place !
The proletarian threat in India was extremely serious. Wage earners represented 55% of the urban population and self-employed workers who exploited no one represented 32%, while employers accounted for only 1%. The bulk of the proletariat worked in large industrial enterprises and nearly three-quarters lived in very large cities. And the struggle took place mainly in the cities. There would have been enormous potential for a proletarian revolution to draw support from a highly exploited and rebellious peasantry. The influence of the big bourgeoisie on the small and middle classes was weak, and it was the political absence of the workers, while the propertied classes had high-level leaders capable of uniting all the Indian propertied classes, that allowed the big landowners, bankers, and big merchants to hold the upper hand. The Indian Communist Party was not likely to represent, even in a distorted way, a class policy for the workers, it which proclaimed that it wanted "a government of popular democracy which will be that of all the groups, individuals, and democratic parties representing the workers, the peasants, the middle classes, and the national bourgeoisie, the one that is favorable to a true industrialization of the country and the independence of India." To give itself a more radical face than the one it had at the time of independence, the Communist Party supported an armed peasant uprising in two regions in 1948 : Andhra and Telengana, where 2,000 villages in a territory of 4,000 km² were organized into popular committees. This uprising was bloodily suppressed by the new army of independent India, as a warning to the popular classes. The working class very quickly had to oppose this new power, notably with a major general strike in the city of Calcutta.
And the absence of an independent workers’ policy is not due to the lack of support it would encounter among the population. Thus, in the first general elections in India, the Communist Party still collected more than 6 million votes and four other groups claiming to be on the extreme left obtained respectively 2.5 million votes, 1.1 million, one million and 400,000 votes to be added to the 22.8 million votes obtained by the socialist and communist opposition.
Let us quote from Charles Bettelheim’s work "Independent India" :
"For many months, we have been witnessing a revolutionary maturation that is accelerated by union and worker action. On February 18, sailors at a training center in Bombay expressed their discontent, many of their grievances having not been satisfied for a long time. From the morning of the 19th, there was a real uprising in which more than 20,000 sailors stationed in Bombay and its surroundings participated, as well as 30 ships anchored in the port. The revolted sailors elected a Central Strike Committee. (…) On the morning of February 21, the battle began. The Central Fleet Strike Committee appealed for support from the population and political organizations. The Congress and the Muslim League refused to give any support to the sailors ; on the other hand, the Bombay unions and the Communist Party gave them their support and decided on a general strike that actually began on February 22. On February 22 and 23, the battle raged in Bombay and a massive and brutal repression fell on the population, leaving more than 250 dead. The Congress and the League then pressured the Central Strike Committee to make the sailors surrender. The Central Strike Committee finally decided to give in, declaring : "We surrender to India, not to England." Gandhi severely condemned the "unholy combination" of Hindus and Muslims which, if it had triumphed, would have "delivered India to the rabble," while Valabhbhai Patel declared that "the fleet must be disciplined." This confirmed the Congress leadership’s desire to avoid the outbreak or expansion of a mass movement that could challenge not only foreign domination but also the social system. From mid-August 1946, bloody clashes between religious communities multiplied, mainly in Bengal and Bihar. Hindu politico-religious organizations, and primarily the Hindu Mahasabha, which was regaining strength in this situation, also responded violently to the action of the Muslim League. At the same time, protests were growing, involving nearly 2 million workers in strike movements. Such a figure had never been reached before. It was under these conditions that the Viceroy decided to form the first interim government. This took office on September 2, 1946. It was headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister. (…) The situation was such that the Constituent Assembly decided to adjourn until April. The formation of the interim government, in fact, did not put an end to the deterioration of the internal situation. Despite massive repression and thousands of arrests, the country was sliding towards chaos and the administration itself ceased to function in some places. (…) On April 20, 1947, as the internal situation in India deteriorated rapidly, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee,declares that Her Majesty’s Government is "determined to take the necessary steps to transfer power into responsible Indian hands, not later than June 1948." At the same time, the Prime Minister announces (...) that Lord Mountbatten is appointed Viceroy of India to replace Lord Wavell. Lord Mountbatten, immediately upon his arrival in India, prepares a plan for the partition of India. India is to be divided into two dominions : the Indian Union and Pakistan, while the princely states will retain their independence and, after negotiations, join one of the two dominions. The Congress Party and the Muslim League accept these proposals (...). At the beginning of July 1947, the plan is submitted to the British Government, which discusses and adopts it in record time, demonstrating remarkable realism, given the place held by India in the British Empire. On July 18, 1947, the Indian Independence Act is adopted by the British Parliament. »
For many months, we have been witnessing a revolutionary maturation that is accelerated by union and worker action. On February 18, sailors at a training center in Bombay expressed their discontent, many of their grievances having not been met for a long time. By the morning of the 19th, there was a real uprising involving more than 20,000 sailors stationed in Bombay and its surroundings, as well as 30 ships anchored in the port. The revolted sailors elected a Central Strike Committee. (…) On the morning of February 21, the battle began. The Central Fleet Strike Committee appealed for support from the population and political organizations. The Congress and the Muslim League refused to provide any support to the sailors ; on the other hand, the Bombay unions and the Communist Party gave them their support and decided on a general strike that actually began on February 22. On February 22 and 23, the battle raged in Bombay and a massive and brutal repression fell on the population, leaving more than 250 dead. The Congress and the League then pressured the Central Strike Committee to make the sailors surrender. The Central Strike Committee finally decided to give in, declaring : "We surrender to India, not to England." Gandhi severely condemned the "unholy combination" of Hindus and Muslims which, if it had triumphed, would have "delivered India to the rabble," while Valabhbhai Patel declared that "the fleet must be disciplined." This confirmed the Congress leadership’s desire to avoid the outbreak or expansion of a mass movement that could challenge not only foreign domination but also the social system. From mid-August 1946, bloody clashes between religious communities multiplied, mainly in Bengal and Bihar. Hindu politico-religious organizations, and primarily the Hindu Mahasabha, which was regaining strength in this situation, also responded violently to the action of the Muslim League. At the same time, protests were growing, involving nearly 2 million workers in strike movements. Such a figure had never been reached before. It was under these conditions that the Viceroy decided to form the first interim government. This took office on September 2, 1946. It was headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister. (…) The situation was such that the Constituent Assembly decided to adjourn until April. The formation of the interim government, in fact, did not put an end to the deterioration of the internal situation. Despite massive repression and thousands of arrests, the country was sliding towards chaos and the administration itself ceased to function in some places. (…) On April 20, 1947, as the internal situation in India deteriorated rapidly, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee,declares that Her Majesty’s Government is "determined to take the necessary steps to transfer power into responsible Indian hands, not later than June 1948." At the same time, the Prime Minister announces (...) that Lord Mountbatten is appointed Viceroy of India to replace Lord Wavell. Lord Mountbatten, immediately upon his arrival in India, prepares a plan for the partition of India. India is to be divided into two dominions : the Indian Union and Pakistan, while the princely states will retain their independence and, after negotiations, join one of the two dominions. The Congress Party and the Muslim League accept these proposals (...). At the beginning of July 1947, the plan is submitted to the British Government, which discusses and adopts it in record time, demonstrating remarkable realism, given the place held by India in the British Empire. On July 18, 1947, the Indian Independence Act is adopted by the British Parliament. »
Much has already been said about the other myth that Gandhi was a great pacifist and an uncompromising advocate of Indian independence. In reality, he supported British imperialism during the First World War and encouraged Indians to fight for Britain. He himself made two attempts to be drafted into the army. Gandhi claimed that the British Empire had a "spiritual foundation." While supporting armed imperialism, he opposed the Chauri Chaura Mutiny of 1921 and demanded an end to the National Non-Cooperation Movement. Gandhi supported Home Rule rather than independence. At this time, his views differed from those of many leaders of the independence movement. For example, his position on the First World War was opposed by the more radical Ghadar Party.
At that time, most advanced intellectuals had been hostile to British rule since the 1880s. They noted that it was halting (and even reversing) the subcontinent’s economic and social development. Despite this, until the late 1920s, Gandhi continued to reject the Indian independence movement in favor of Home Rule. Some Congress leaders expressed frustration with his illusions about the British and his refusal to take the struggle to a higher level.
Another fable portrays him as a simple man, a man of the people, and a man who renounced personal power. But even after the First World War, his belief was that the Indian masses, through exemplary moderation, would be able to impress the British (and himself) and show that they deserved independence. At the same time, in reality, he himself made all the decisions regarding tactics and strategy.
Other members of Congress frequently expressed disagreement with his autocratic behavior. He claimed to be responding to a call from beyond, as autocrats often do, and Gandhi simply ignored Congress decisions with which he disagreed, doing as he pleased. He preferred to work with a small, elite coterie rather than the organization as a whole, and used the practice of fasting to control the Congress movement. Faced with his fasts, his opponents had to abandon their complaints and follow his decisions.
He liked to tell the Indian masses how to behave, but he was less scrupulous when it came to the Indian capitalist class. For example, he was close to the Birlas, a capitalist family who gave money to Gandhi’s clique and advised them on economic policy.
Another narrative presents Gandhi as a great champion of the Dalits, who allegedly tried to abolish untouchable status. But Ambedkar criticized Gandhi for being too passive on this issue. Gandhi’s attitude toward the Dalits, consistent with his elitist ideas in general, was paternalistic. He wanted them to liberate, not for them to liberate themselves. He even went on hunger strike to prevent Dalits from having seats in the Indian parliament, although he supported the right of other minorities to sit there. Indeed, Gandhi supported the Hindu social structure. He wanted to improve it gradually, by removing the barriers erected against Dalits’ access to equality, but he did not want to challenge the social structure itself.
Moreover, he constantly emphasized the obligations of the oppressed, without doing the same for the British. In his worldview, the rights of the oppressed were less important than their obedience to his code of moral values. It is perhaps not inappropriate to note that this son of a high-ranking bureaucrat in a princely state explained that "we are not known for having any dealings with bands of brigands." He never abandoned his feudal idea that the masses have no rights of their own, only duties.
Gandhi is also known for being very spiritual. This may be true. But what consequences did this have for India ? His ideas about religion and spirituality, and the kind of post-independence India he wanted to see emerge, corresponded not to the subcontinent’s long association with science and rationalism, but rather to a certain exoticizing of India. Apparently, God was his close friend. He liked to personalize this relationship, often saying, "God warned me to..." to get others to obey him. Moreover, he used religious texts to propagate pacifist idealism, often with tragic results, not as a means of mobilizing the masses.
(Other leaders sometimes used religious texts, but to elicit resistance, not passivity.)
He idealized peasant existence and the village, rather than modernization and emancipation. But an India made up of millions of small, backward villages was not the path to a land of freedom and plenty. One aspect of his spiritual and religious aura was his preaching of abstinence. This helped to consolidate moral puritanism. But it also had a disgusting side. For example, towards the end of his life, Gandhi began sleeping with young women and very young girls—claiming that this was a way for him to test his “platonic resolves.”
As a sergeant major, Gandhi won medals in the Boer War and, four years later, in the Anglo-Zulu War. He gave his blessing to a sort of prince, the nawab of Malerkotla, who had ordered ten Muslims to be shot for every Hindu killed in his territory. And, at a prayer meeting in June 1947, a few months before his death, he declared : "If we had the atomic bomb, we would have used it against the British."
Gandhi’s non-violence is mainly linked to the idea that one should not make a proletarian revolution...
Belonging to a higher caste, he opposed a proposal by the British authorities to grant the "untouchables" (the lowest social class) separate electoral status so that their interests could be better represented. His fast was supposed to last until death. It lasted five days, that is, until Hindu leaders pressured the untouchable leader to reject British reforms.
In other respects, too, Gandhi deliberately propagated a mythology about himself... It has always been virtually impossible to touch his image. When it was learned that he "allowed" teenage girls from his ashram to sleep naked with him (and thousands of them vied for this privilege), we were told that this was a way of "putting his vow of chastity to the test." We also know that in the name of his cause, he had to endure naked massages by these same girls for an hour every day. They also administered a daily salt water enema.
His conception of the place of women, like that of children, or even that of the exploited or the oppressed is very far from the proclaimed non-violence...