Aparna Ganguly
Mahatma Gandhi: His Positive Contributions to India’s Freedom
Mahatma Gandhi remains one of the most influential leaders in India’s struggle for independence. His life and work introduced a powerful new way of fighting injustice — a way rooted in truth, moral courage, and non-violence. His contributions shaped not only India’s freedom movement but also inspired civil rights movements across the world.
1. Introduced Non-Violent Satyagraha
Gandhiji’s greatest contribution was his philosophy of Satyagraha — the force of truth and soul. He taught that oppression can be defeated without hatred or violence. This created a new moral strength among ordinary Indians, who could now participate in the freedom movement with dignity and courage.
2. United Millions Across Caste, Class & Religion
Before Gandhi, political activity was limited to educated elites. Gandhiji brought farmers, labourers, women, and the poor into the struggle. His simplicity, spinning wheel, village programmes, and personal example connected deeply with the masses.
For the first time, India rose as one nation.
3. Championed Civil Rights and Social Equality
Gandhi fought against many social evils —
-
untouchability,
-
discrimination,
-
alcoholism,
-
social injustice, and
-
gender inequality.
He called the so-called “Untouchables” Harijans (children of God) and devoted much of his time to uplift them. His efforts prepared India socially for independence.
4. Led Transformative National Movements
Gandhi guided several major freedom movements that shook the foundations of British rule:
-
Non-Cooperation Movement (1920) – Encouraged Indians to boycott British institutions.
-
Salt March & Civil Disobedience Movement (1930) – A bold, symbolic act that mobilized the nation.
-
Quit India Movement (1942) – A powerful call demanding an immediate end to British rule.
These movements showed the world the moral power of peaceful resistance.
5. Restored Self-Respect and Confidence Among Indians
At a time when people were made to feel inferior under colonial rule, Gandhiji revived swadeshi, spinning khadi, and self-reliance. His message was simple:
“We can govern ourselves. We are capable. We are strong.”
This mental and emotional awakening was a key step toward independence.
6. Inspired Global Peace Movements
Gandhi’s methods influenced world leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and many others who fought injustice using non-violence. His legacy continues to guide peace efforts globally.
Conclusion
Mahatma Gandhi’s contribution to India’s freedom struggle was not just political—it was moral, social, and deeply human. His leadership brought unity, courage, and hope to millions.
He proved that even the mightiest empire can be challenged with truth, simplicity, and unwavering determination.
His life reminds us that real change begins with inner strength and compassion.
Below is a neutral, fact-based summary of the criticisms or viewpoints as portrayed in the film “The Bengal Files” (2024).
These are NOT historical verdicts, but cinematic interpretations shown in the film’s narrative.
I’ll phrase them carefully and responsibly.
⭐ Points Shown Against Mahatma Gandhi in the Film “The Bengal Files”
(As depicted in the film’s storyline and characters — not established historical facts)
The film presents a critical lens on certain decisions of Gandhi during the freedom struggle, especially concerning Bengal. The key criticisms portrayed are:
1. Gandhi’s alleged inaction during Bengal’s suffering
The film suggests that Gandhi did not intervene strongly during the Bengal Famine of 1943 or rising communal tensions in the region.
Characters in the film imply that his focus remained elsewhere, leaving Bengal “abandoned.”
2. Preference toward other regions over Bengal
The narrative portrays a feeling among some Bengali characters that Gandhi prioritised political developments in the North and West, sidelining Bengal’s crises and leaders.
3. Portrayal of Gandhi’s decisions as politically selective
The film hints that certain decisions — such as withdrawal of movements (like Non-Cooperation after Chauri Chaura) — indirectly weakened Bengal’s revolutionary momentum, which was strong at that time.
4. Soft stance towards certain political groups
Some scenes depict Gandhi as being overly conciliatory, especially with groups seen as causing unrest, which—according to the film—deepened Bengal’s suffering.
5. Perception that Gandhi discouraged Bengal’s revolutionary fighters
The film shows characters frustrated that Gandhi’s emphasis on strict non-violence did not acknowledge Bengal’s
-
armed revolutionaries,
-
their sacrifices,
-
or their unique context of oppression.
6. Indication that Gandhi’s negotiations with the British harmed Bengal’s interests
The storyline suggests that certain political compromises made at the national level did not adequately protect Bengal’s cultural and political aspirations.
⚠️ Important Note (for balance and fairness)
These points are cinematic portrayals, shaped to tell a strong emotional story.
Historians hold diverse and sometimes opposing interpretations of Gandhi’s actions, and scholarly consensus is broader and more nuanced.
Below is a fact-checked, balanced historical analysis of the major criticisms often raised against Mahatma Gandhi.
This summary is based on mainstream historical scholarship, primary sources, biographies, and academic research — not the film.
I will present:
1️⃣ The criticism
2️⃣ The historical context
3️⃣ What historians conclude
This approach avoids bias and keeps history accurate.
✅ Fact-Checked Historical Analysis of Criticisms Against Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi remains one of the most extensively studied figures in modern history. Many criticisms exist, but most have detailed historical explanations.
Here is a clear, objective analysis:
1. Claim: Gandhi did not help Bengal during the 1943 Famine
The Criticism
Gandhi is accused of staying silent during the Bengal famine in which nearly 3 million died.
Historical Context
-
In 1943 Gandhi was in prison (Aga Khan Palace) after the Quit India Movement.
-
He suffered major health issues, including malaria, and was released only in 1944.
-
He wrote a few statements later but could not politically intervene during the peak of the famine.
What Historians Say
-
Primary responsibility is attributed to:
-
wartime British policies
-
Churchill’s War Cabinet
-
Scorched-earth policies in eastern India
-
Colonial grain diversion for military use
-
-
Gandhi’s physical absence from Bengal was due to imprisonment, not neglect.
So while Gandhi did not directly intervene, historians do not hold him responsible for the famine.
2. Claim: Gandhi favoured Muslims / appeased Jinnah
The Criticism
Some argue Gandhi gave more concessions to Muslims, harming Hindu interests.
Historical Context
-
Gandhi’s policy was communal harmony.
-
He opposed Partition until the last months.
-
He undertook fasts to stop communal killings of both sides — not to favour one community.
What Historians Say
-
Gandhi acted to prevent civil war, not for political appeasement.
-
His efforts forced riots to stop in places like Calcutta (1947), praised even by critics like H.S. Suhrawardy.
3. Claim: Gandhi weakened the revolutionary movement of Bengal
The Criticism
The withdrawal of the Non-Cooperation Movement (1922) after Chauri Chaura is seen as a betrayal of revolutionaries.
Historical Context
-
The Chauri Chaura incident killed 22 policemen.
-
Gandhi believed India was not ready for mass violence and feared nationwide bloodshed.
What Historians Say
-
The British records show revolutionaries were already heavily infiltrated and many cells destroyed.
-
Most scholars conclude the movement would have collapsed anyway.
-
Gandhi’s withdrawal shifted strategy toward mass participation, laying the foundation for 1930–1942 movements.
4. Claim: Gandhi failed to prevent Partition
The Criticism
Some argue Gandhi could have prevented the division of India.
Historical Context
-
Demand for Pakistan was rising since the 1930s.
-
The British decided on withdrawal deadlines.
-
Jinnah rejected several compromise formulae.
What Historians Say
-
Gandhi was the only major leader still opposing partition in 1946–47.
-
He suggested Jinnah as Prime Minister of India just to avoid division.
-
Nehru, Patel, Jinnah, and the British collectively shaped the final outcomes.
Historians agree that Gandhi alone could not have stopped the partition.
5. Claim: Gandhi interfered in matters of caste and diluted Dalit politics
The Criticism
He opposed Dr. Ambedkar’s separate electorates for Dalits.
Historical Context
-
Gandhi believed separate electorates would divide Hindu society permanently.
-
Ambedkar believed they were essential for Dalit rights.
What Historians Say
-
The Poona Pact (1932) increased Dalit representation far beyond earlier proposals, even though separate electorates were withdrawn.
-
Ambedkar later wrote that although Gandhi harmed Dalit political autonomy, the negotiations were sincere.
Most historians see this as a policy disagreement, not bad intent.
6. Claim: Gandhi’s personal lifestyle and ideas were impractical, unrealistic
The Criticism
He promoted extreme self-control, celibacy experiments, and idealism rather than practical politics.
Historical Context
-
Gandhi’s life was based on personal vows of brahmacharya and spiritual discipline.
-
His political strategies (non-violence, civil disobedience) were considered unconventional.
What Historians Say
-
Non-violence mobilised the masses and became internationally influential (MLK, Mandela).
-
His personal experiments are criticized but seen as part of his spiritual path.
They had no direct political implications.
⭐ Overall Scholarly Conclusion
Most historians conclude:
-
Gandhi was not perfect, and some decisions had consequences.
-
But his intent was consistently moral, and his contribution to mass mobilisation, dismantling colonial legitimacy, and inspiring civil rights movements is unparalleled.
-
Criticisms arise mainly from modern political lenses or incomplete context.
Sophie Parker
Sikander@87