On 2nd October 2024, Gandhi’s 155th birth anniversary, a popular social media personality, Mr. Anand Ranganathan posted a video on Twitter and Instagram that seemed to celebrate the occasion. However, the video was actually a mocking critique of Gandhi, urging viewers to reconsider if Gandhi deserves their respect. The video soon went viral, garnering millions of views on social media, and was widely circulated across WhatsApp groups in India. If you haven’t already, I would suggest watching the video (here) before proceeding.
The accusations levelled against Gandhi are not new. However this video got millions of views because the creator is not only articulate but is also skilled at evoking an emotional reaction using sensitive issues, such as women, children, sex and religion. And because he is suit wearing and English speaking, his words travel even in educated circles, reaching audiences that would typically be dismissive of such videos. He mixes facts, opinions, and some distortions into a sensationalised but potent form.
I received it from a friend on a Whatsapp group. For a while I contemplated if it was worth responding with facts. There’s ample evidence that people don’t change their minds because of facts. This is especially true in emotionally charged topics that are linked to their own beliefs and identity.
Nevertheless, I spent some time collating points around the topics mentioned in the video and shared it with the same group. Those points were the origin of this article in which I attempt to delve deeper into each criticism, providing some historical context and hopefully a more nuanced understanding.
Critiquing Gandhi
I am glad that more people these days talk about Gandhi’s flaws. Before 2014, Gandhi’s shortcomings were usually brushed under the carpet in India. He was often portrayed as a saint-like figure who single-handedly led India to freedom. When the new government came to power in 2014, it was only natural for the pendulum to swing hard in the opposite direction.
Also, in a free country, people should be able to say what they wish—so long as they do not incite violence. I am assuming that Mr Ranganathan actually believes what he is saying and is not saying it for political or malicious reasons.
1. Religious Distortion
Claim: Gandhi distorted the hymn Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram by adding lines equating Ishwar (Hindu word for God) and Allah (Muslim word for God), transforming what was a traditional Hindu hymn into a secular version.
Response: Gandhi dedicated his life to fostering religious harmony, particularly between Hindus and Muslims. It’s natural, then, that Gandhi wanted the prayers at his meetings to reflect the unity he championed.
It’s far-fetched to suggest that Gandhi intended any disrespect toward Hinduism by altering the hymn. His adaptation was just one of many efforts to bring together a religiously divided India, especially during the fight for independence and the violent period of partition.
Gandhi used this prayer throughout his life, from the Salt/Dandi March[1] in 1930 right up until his death in 1948.
Some attribute the hymn to Saint Tulsidas, others to Saint Ramdas. Yet, interestingly, most Indians today know it because of Gandhi. It was composed by Pandit Paluskar, a close associate of Gandhi, who created many bhajans for his prayer meetings.[2]
Gandhi never claimed his version was superior or meant to replace the original; it was simply adapted to promote unity at his gatherings.
2. The Celibacy Experiments
Claim: Gandhi was a pervert and a sexual predator who forced young women in his ashram to sleep naked beside him.
Response: This part of Gandhi’s life indeed deserves more attention, and no one should claim to follow Gandhi without knowing and understanding this facet of the man. Upon first hearing about this in my 20s, I, like many, was shocked and repelled. It took me a while to reconcile this part of Gandhi’s life with my broader respect for the man.
Gandhi did indeed conduct experiments where young women slept naked beside him, as a test of his celibacy. The speaker in the viral video suggests that this was merely a “pretext” and that Gandhi had different motives. However, there are no accounts suggesting that Gandhi’s intentions were anything other than a bizarre spiritual test.
Gandhi was deeply committed to Brahmacharya, a concept in Hinduism that involves controlling one’s passions, particularly lust. Gandhi did his experiments at a time when there were Hindu Muslim riots in India and Gandhi had bizarrely concluded that it was happening because he was not pure.
He believed that mastering such desires was essential to pursuing the path of truth. Gandhi’s meaning of Brahmacharya was :
“One who never has any lustful intention, who by constant attendance upon God has become proof against conscious or unconscious emissions, who is capable of lying naked with naked women, however beautiful they may be, without being in any manner whatsoever sexually excited. Such a person should be incapable of lying, incapable of intending or doing harm to a single man or woman in the whole world, is free from anger and malice and detached in the sense of the Bhagavadgita. Such a person is a full brahmachari. Brahmachari literally means a person who is making daily and steady progress towards God and whose every act is done in pursuance of that end and no other.”[3]
While his methods were undoubtedly strange, they were consistent with his lifelong efforts to test and challenge himself to what he felt was a process of spiritual purification.
“Gandhi hadn’t had a sexual relationship with a woman for 40 years. Nor, in any obvious way and so far as anyone can tell, did he begin one now. His conscious purpose in inviting naked women to share his bed was, paradoxically, to avoid having sex with them. They were there as a temptation: if he wasn’t aroused by their presence, he could be reassured he’d achieved brahmacharya, a Hindu concept of celibate self-control.”[4]
It’s worth noting that the women involved did not accuse Gandhi of any wrongdoing, and even decades after Gandhi’s death, none came forward to suggest otherwise. That said, Gandhi’s actions displayed a lack of consideration for the psychological effects on these women.
There’s an intriguing aspect to this story: some of the women who participated in these experiments were reportedly jealous of each other, each wanting to be the one chosen by Gandhi for the test.[5]
This phenomenon isn’t unusual in the realm of spiritual leaders, where followers often feel “blessed” to be selected for questionable practices. In Gandhi’s case, it underscores how his influence over these women—and their willingness to participate—further complicates the narrative.
Many of Gandhi’s closest associates, including Vinoba Bhave, often regarded as more Gandhian than Gandhi himself, advised against these experiments, asserting they were unnecessary for practising brahmacharya. [7]
Sardar Patel was angry and frustrated by Gandhi’s “obstinacy”. Nehru found Gandhi’s views on marital relationships “abnormal and unnatural” and “can only lead to frustration, inhibition, neurosis, and all manner of physical and nervous ills. . . . I do not know why he is so obsessed by this problem of sex.”[6]
Gandhi continued with the experiments only for a short period but in full public view and with discussions and debates on the topic with many. Those must have been strange times for all involved.
Whatever way you look at it, considering the immense power and reverence enjoyed by Gandhi, it’s tough to justify his actions. He might have had nobel intent but the fact is that he women’s great devotion to him was in a way exploited by him.
To summarise, while these experiments were certainly ill-conceived and morally questionable by today’s standards, they must still be seen in the context of Gandhi’s own beliefs and the times in which he lived.
Author and historian Ramachandra Guha says in his book “Facing his ideal of a united, harmonious India crumbling around him, and without Kasturba, Andrews and Mahadev to console or assist him, Gandhi sought to tame the (stark, manifest) violence without by taming the (probably non-existent) passions within.”[7]
3. Racist Gandhi
Claim: Gandhi was a racist bigot and he referred to Africans as “troublesome” and “inferior.”
Response: It is true that in his youth, Gandhi held racist views towards Black Africans. When he first arrived in South Africa at the age of 23, Gandhi had a perception of Africans shaped by the prejudices of his time. At that point in history, much of the Western world—and indeed large parts of India—viewed Africa as uncivilised. I remember being surprised to read the great 19th century social reformer, Gopal Ganesh Agarkar refer to Africans as “ranati (wild)” in a Marathi essay.
Gandhi’s early writings reflected his biases, but it’s important to recognise the broader historical context. Slavery, which involved the dehumanising of Africans, was legal in the United States till 1865. Also this was in an age when information travelled slowly, so most Indians would have known little about Africa or Africans.
What’s special about Gandhi is his capacity for constant growth and change. Over the course of his two decades in South Africa, Gandhi evolved. By the time he returned to India, Gandhi had shed his earlier prejudices and had become a staunch advocate for equality, non-violence, and the dignity of all people, regardless of race or colour.
The speaker in the viral video conveniently ignores Gandhi’s transformation, choosing instead to focus on his early years. Gandhi himself acknowledged his mistakes and evolved into a leader who championed equality across all communities. Although it is important to know that Gandhi had racist views in his youth, it is this journey of growth that is crucial to understanding his legacy, not just the errors of his youth.
4. Stubborn and Heartless: Gandhi’s Sacrifice of Kasturba
Claim: Gandhi denied penicillin and modern treatment to his wife, Kasturba which led to her painful death
Response: Gandhi was never a fan of modern medicine and used to favour what he thought of as natural cures. However, the decision not to administer penicillin to Kasturba was more complex than a simple refusal by Gandhi.
Sushila Nayar who was the personal physician to Gandhi and Kasturba at the time writes in her reminiscence of Kasturba
At 5-30 in the evening Col. Shah and Col. Bhandari came to ask Gandhiji what his decision was with regard to penicillin. “Let her have it,” he replied, “if Sushila and Dr. Gilder wish to give it to her.” Dr. Gilder knew Gandhiji’s wishes in the matter. He was not enthusiastic about giving it. We had a talk with Devadasbhai. There were two aspects to the question. Bapu’s opinion was to let her rely on God and die in peace. Why bother her with medicines on her death-bed? There was something in that. On the other hand, one felt, why give up hope while there was life, why not continue our efforts to save her? This was the line of reasoning of a detached scientist. Devadasbhai belonged to this group and I was also inclined to think along that line. Dr. Gilder told him that we were prepared to give her penicillin if he wished it after considering the question from every aspect. Under his instructions, I went to boil my syringe and needles. Gandhiji called me. “What have you people decided?” he asked. “We will give her penicillin,” I replied. “Do you both believe that it should be given?” he continued his queries. “Are you sure it will do her good?” I could not say “Yes.” It was just a trial. The patient was almost in a moribund condition. How could I say for certain that penicillin or for that matter, anything would help her. “Please talk to Dr. Gilder about it,” I replied and went away.[9]
According to Sushila Nayar, who was the Gandhis personal physician at the time, Gandhi ultimately left the decision in the hands of the doctors. Nayar recalls that the doctors, too, were unsure whether penicillin would be of any help, as Kasturba’s condition was already critical. Gandhi’s preference was to let her die in peace rather than subject her to aggressive medical interventions in her final hours.
This is not unusual—many families make similar decisions even today when faced with terminally ill loved ones.
It is true that Gandhi believed in naturopathy, hydropathy and such remedies and was not keen on modern medicines. He said:
“My love of nature cure and of indigenous systems does not blind me to the advance that Western medicine has made in spite of the fact that I have stigmatized it as black magic. I have used the harsh term, and I do not withdraw it, because of the fact that it has countenanced vivisection and all the awfulness it means and because it will stop at no practice, however bad it may be, if it prolongs the life of the body and because it ignores the immortal soul which resides in the body. I cling to nature cure in spite of its great limitations and in spite of the lazy pretensions of nature curists.”[10]
Gandhi was not in denial of the advances of modern medicine. However, partly because he believed in the religious idea of an “immortal soul” , he thought of the journey of the body and the soul separately. But note that even in 1946, Gandhi called out “nature curists” for their “lazy pretensions”, something that’s rampant in nature cures and alternative medicine charlatans even today.
It is not only inaccurate but also in bad taste to insinuate that Gandhi caused the death of his wife of 61 years by refusing her treatment.
5. Superstition Over Science
Claim: Gandhi’s was unscientific. He blamed the devastating 1934 Bihar earthquake on the sin of untouchability.
Response: One of Gandhi’s most riveting public disagreements was with the poet and Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore. Tagore is famed for bestowing the title of Mahatma (Great Soul) upon Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi affectionately referred to Tagore as Gurudev (Guru or Teacher). Their mutual admiration was evident.
However, in 1934, when a powerful earthquake rocked Bihar in eastern India, Gandhi publicly attributed this calamity to divine retribution for Indians practising untouchability. This particular incident is often cited to demonstrate Gandhi’s irrationality and religious conservatism.
Though Tagore was equally opposed to untouchability, he admonished Gandhi for attributing moral values to natural occurrences. Given India’s susceptibility to superstitions, Tagore noted, “It is all the more unfortunate because this kind of unscientific view is readily accepted by large sections of our countrymen.”[11]
Gandhi, to his credit, published Tagore’s critique in his weekly “Harijan.” However, he followed it up with his explanation. Gandhi said “My belief is a call to repentance and self-purification … even as I cannot help believing in God though I am unable to prove his existence to the sceptics, in like manner, I cannot prove the connection of the sin of untouchability with the Bihar visitation even though the connection is instinctively felt by me”[12]
This episode illustrates the deep religious and spiritual convictions that shaped Gandhi’s worldview. It’s important to remember that even today, many Indians attribute personal or collective misfortune to supernatural or divine retribution. Gandhi’s beliefs, though out of step with scientific reasoning, were not unusual for someone of his upbringing and time.
6. Ambedkar and the Caste System
Claim: Gandhi was a casteist. Dr. Ambedkar felt that Gandhi used treachery and deceit..
Response: Gandhi’s views on caste were complex and differed significantly from those of Dr. Ambedkar. While Gandhi was opposed to caste-based discrimination, he did not advocate for the complete abolition of the caste system. Instead, he believed in reforming the system to remove its more oppressive elements, particularly untouchability. Gandhi saw caste distinctions as a form of social organisation, which he believed could be preserved without the inequality and discrimination associated with it.
Ambedkar, on the other hand, viewed the caste system as inherently oppressive and sought its complete dismantling. Their most famous disagreement came during the negotiations over separate electorates for Dalits. Ambedkar wanted Dalits to have their own electorates, separate from the Hindu majority, to ensure fair representation. Gandhi, however, was vehemently opposed, believing that such a move would fragment Hindu society and deepen caste divisions.
Gandhi’s opposition led him to undertake a fast unto death, a move that put immense pressure on Ambedkar to compromise. Ambedkar had the support of large segments of society, but his overall nationwide following and support was not comparable to Gandhi. The result was the Poona Pact in 1932, which granted Dalits reserved seats within the general electorate but not separate electorates. This compromise left Ambedkar frustrated, and his criticisms of Gandhi, including the charge of deceit, must be understood in this context.
Despite their differences, Gandhi respected Ambedkar’s scholarship and pushed for having him as India’s first law minister. Gandhi was committed to inclusion and reform, even as he clashed with Ambedkar on specific issues.
However even seven years after Gandhi’s death, Ambedkar was apparently still bitter. In 1955 he said of Gandhi: “I was an opponent (of Gandhi), and I saw the bare man in him. He showed me his fangs.” [13]
Ambedkar was a phenomenal scholar and leader, who rendered great service to India. However, Ambedkar’s criticisms of Gandhi, need to be seen in the light of their ideological differences and the political circumstances of their time.
7. Hindus and Hitler
Claim: Gandhi didn’t care if all Hindus were killed. Gandhi suggested that Jews and British be willing to be slaughtered by Hitler
Response: The claim that Gandhi supported the killing of Hindus is a gross distortion of his views. Gandhi’s actual words during the partition period, when communal violence between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims was rampant, clarify his position:
Hindus and Sikhs should become brave and show that even if all the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan were to be killed there would be no retaliation in India. I do not want to live to see our people copy Pakistan. If I am to live I shall ask every Hindu and every Sikh not to touch a single Muslim. It is cowardice to kill Muslims and we must become brave and not cowards.[14]
src:Hindustan Times
Gandhi believed in non-violence (ahimsa) as a principle for all conflicts. His deep faith in non-violence was rooted in the idea that love and moral resistance could ultimately transform the oppressor. He practised this throughout his life, including during the non-violent Satyagrahas in South Africa and India, where protestors often risked their lives while refusing to retaliate against violence.
Regarding Gandhi’s stance on the Nazis, it is true that Gandhi suggested a nonviolent approach to confront Hitler and even wrote a letter to Hitler urging him to stop the war. Gandhi believed that holding the moral high ground and appealing to the oppressor’s conscience leads to a change in their behaviour. This approach, while controversial, stemmed from Gandhi’s conviction that violence only begets more violence.
You may find Gandhi’s approach unrealistic, especially when applied to someone like Hitler. But do note that about 80,000,000 humans or about 3% of the global population died in World War 2. The Allies may have won the war, but humanity as a whole certainly lost.
You may disagree with Gandhi’s views or find them unrealistic, but to conclude that he actively wanted anyone killed, or supported surrender to oppressors without understanding the moral argument, is not prudent. Gandhi’s way was always to break the cycle of violence, even if it required great personal or national cost and sacrifice.
Conclusion
Gandhi was a man shaped by his time. While he had his flaws, his contributions to India’s independence and his philosophy of non-violence have left a lasting mark on human history. Gandhi was deeply flawed, but his capacity for growth and his dedication to truth and justice are what set him apart.
Critics often focus on Gandhi’s missteps without recognising the broader context of his life’s work. It is unfair to judge him by the standards of today, without understanding the details and complexities of his time.
Elon Musk is perhaps the last person you would associate with Gandhi. But weirdly enough, I think one of Musk’s quotes applies well to many greats, including Gandhi. Musk said “To anyone I’ve offended, I just want to say: I re-invented electric cars and I’m sending people to Mars in a rocket ship. Did you also think I was gonna be a chill, normal dude?”Gandhi changed India and the world. Expecting him to be a “chill, normal dude” or even to be a saint or a Mahatma (great soul) is a misplaced expectation.
There is no such thing as a “100% Mahatma”, we are all flawed, which is why blind hero worship can be so dangerous. Gandhi was as much a mere mortal as the rest of us—remarkable in some ways and deeply flawed in others. We can admire and learn from the good, the bad, and the bizarre in his life.
However, despite his many flaws, Gandhi’s philosophy of truth, love, and non-violence has been transformative for not only great independence struggles and civil rights movements but even for millions of ordinary people to become better humans. Consider if that’s a legacy worth celebrating.
[1] ‘Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram’: Why Mahatma Gandhi Tweaked The Original Lyrics
[2] Untold story of Bapu’s favourite bhajan, ‘Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram’ – The Tribune
[3] Brahmacharya | Selected Writings of Mahatma Gandhi
[4] How Would Gandhi’s Celibacy Tests With Naked Women Be Seen Today?
[5] Mridula (Manu) Gandhi – Indpaedia
[6] Mohandas and the Unicorn | The National Interest
[7] Gandhi 1914-1948: The Years That Changed The World
[8] Slavery is Abolished
[9] Kasturba – A Personal Reminiscence
[10] Nature Cure | Mind of Mahatma Gandhi | Philosophy
[11] When Tagore accused Gandhi of superstition | Eye News – The Indian Express
[12] ‘Natural Supernaturalism?’ The Tagore–Gandhi Debate on the Bihar Earthquake
[13] Gandhi@150: The Man Who Saw Mahatma’s Fangs
[14] Gandhi’s Speech At The Prayer Meeting on January 13, 1948
[15] Sardar Patel’s anger against Gandhiji over his celibacy experiments
