Gandhi and the Left: An Uneasy Relationship in Indian Politics

When Mahatma Gandhi emerged as the central figure of India’s freedom struggle in the early 1920s, another powerful ideological force was simultaneously gaining momentum-the Left. Inspired by the 1917 Russian Revolution and committed to Marxist principles, Indian leftists viewed the world through the lens of class struggle and scientific materialism. Gandhi, on the other hand, grounded his politics in religious ethics, spirituality, and moral transformation. This fundamental contrast in worldviews created a relationship between Gandhi and the Indian Left that was marked by deep ideological tensions, yet also by surprising moments of pragmatic cooperation in the shared pursuit of independence.

The Left’s rise and Gandhi’s simultaneous arrival 🔗

The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 sent shockwaves across the colonized world, including India. For many young Indian nationalists disillusioned with moderate constitutionalism, Soviet Russia represented a new path-one that promised not just political freedom but a complete restructuring of society based on equality and the elimination of class exploitation. Communist ideas began spreading in major Indian cities like Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta by the early 1920s, attracting intellectuals, workers, and peasant leaders who saw in Marxism a powerful tool for understanding and combating both colonial rule and indigenous social hierarchies.

At precisely this moment, Gandhi was transforming the Indian National Congress from an elite debating society into a mass movement. His methods-non-violent civil disobedience, religious fasting, and appeals to moral conscience-drew millions of ordinary Indians into the freedom struggle for the first time. The Champaran and Kheda Satyagrahas of 1917-18, followed by the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920-22, established Gandhi as the undisputed leader of Indian nationalism. Yet his approach could not have been more different from what the emerging Left advocated. Where Marxists emphasized material conditions and economic structures, Gandhi spoke of soul-force and spiritual regeneration. Where the Left called for class conflict, Gandhi preached class harmony through moral persuasion.

Three distinct strands of the Indian Left 🔗

The Indian Left was never a monolithic entity. It encompassed at least three major ideological currents, each of which developed its own distinctive relationship with Gandhi and Gandhian politics.

M.N. Roy’s radical humanism 🔗

Manabendra Nath Roy stands as one of India’s most colourful and controversial revolutionary figures. Born in Bengal, Roy began as a militant nationalist before becoming a founding member of the Mexican Communist Party in 1917 and later helping establish the Communist Party of India in Tashkent in 1920. At the Second Congress of the Communist International, Roy famously debated Lenin himself on the question of colonial liberation, arguing that Indian society was already sufficiently capitalist for a proletarian revolution without needing to first pass through a bourgeois-democratic stage.

Roy’s critique of Gandhi was sharp and unsparing. He viewed Gandhi as a leader of the bourgeoisie whose religious revivalism and emphasis on non-violence served to contain and deflect the revolutionary potential of the Indian masses. Gandhi’s popularity, Roy argued, stemmed from the very backwardness of Indian society rather than any progressive content in his message. Yet by the late 1930s, Roy’s own thinking had evolved considerably. Having broken with the Comintern, he moved away from orthodox Marxism toward what he called “Radical Humanism,” which emphasized reason, individual freedom, and ethical politics. In this later phase, Roy became somewhat more sympathetic to Gandhi’s moral leadership, even as he continued to reject Gandhian political strategy.

S.A. Dange and Indian communism 🔗

Shripad Amrit Dange represented the orthodox Communist current in Indian politics. In 1921, Dange published a pamphlet titled “Gandhi Vs. Lenin,” which compared the two leaders and found Lenin’s approach superior. This work brought him to the attention of M.N. Roy and marked Dange’s emergence as a prominent Marxist thinker and organizer. He went on to become a founding member of the Communist Party of India and a major figure in the trade union movement.

For Dange and orthodox Communists, the fundamental problem with Gandhi was his rejection of class struggle. Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship-the idea that wealthy capitalists should voluntarily act as trustees of their wealth for society’s benefit rather than being expropriated-was seen as a naive fantasy that protected the interests of the propertied classes. The Communists were particularly critical of Gandhi’s intervention in the 1918 Ahmedabad textile workers’ dispute, where he advocated for cooperation between workers and mill owners rather than confrontation. The CPI’s position was that Gandhi’s emphasis on class harmony merely diluted the revolutionary potential of the working class.

Ram Manohar Lohia’s democratic socialism 🔗

The third major strand of the Indian Left was represented by figures like Ram Manohar Lohia, who sought to synthesize socialist economics with Gandhian methods. Lohia was among the founders of the Congress Socialist Party in 1934, a left-wing group that operated within the Indian National Congress. Unlike Roy or Dange, Lohia was genuinely influenced by Gandhi’s socio-economic ideas; his doctoral thesis at the University of Berlin focused on Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha and its implications for economic theory.

Lohia represented a distinctively Indian socialism that rejected both capitalist exploitation and Soviet-style authoritarianism. He embraced Gandhian techniques of non-violent resistance while pushing for more radical economic transformation than Gandhi himself advocated. In his influential work “Marx, Gandhi and Socialism,” Lohia attempted to demonstrate how insights from both thinkers could be combined. The Congress Socialists were among the most active participants in Gandhi-led movements, particularly the Quit India Movement of 1942, even as they pushed the Congress toward more explicitly socialist positions.

Core points of contention 🔗

Despite their differences, the various strands of the Indian Left shared certain fundamental criticisms of Gandhian philosophy.

Spiritualism versus scientific materialism 🔗

The Left’s commitment to scientific materialism put it at odds with Gandhi’s deeply religious worldview. Gandhi believed that politics and religion could not be separated; his concept of Satyagraha was rooted in spiritual discipline, and he saw the struggle for Swaraj as ultimately a moral and spiritual endeavour. The Left, by contrast, viewed religion as either an obstacle to social progress or at best irrelevant to the material questions of economic justice. M.N. Roy particularly criticized what he called Gandhi’s “medieval mentality” and his attempt to bring religion into politics.

Trusteeship versus class struggle 🔗

Perhaps no single concept generated more Left criticism than Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship. Gandhi argued that wealthy individuals should regard themselves as trustees of their wealth, holding it for the benefit of society as a whole. He believed this transformation could be achieved through moral persuasion rather than coercive expropriation. The Left saw this as hopelessly idealistic at best, and at worst as an ideological cover for the continued exploitation of workers and peasants. From the Marxist perspective, asking capitalists to voluntarily give up their class privileges was like asking wolves to become vegetarians.

Village economy versus industrialisation 🔗

Gandhi’s vision of a decentralised, village-based economy built around cottage industries like khadi production was another major point of contention. Gandhi was deeply suspicious of large-scale industrialisation, which he associated with exploitation, environmental degradation, and the spiritual emptiness of modern Western civilization. The Left, however, saw industrial development as essential for India’s economic advancement and the empowerment of the working class. From their perspective, Gandhi’s romantic attachment to village life was backward-looking and would condemn India to permanent poverty.

A pragmatic alliance despite ideological differences 🔗

Despite these profound disagreements, the relationship between Gandhi and the Left was never simply one of opposition. Pragmatic considerations repeatedly brought them together in the shared struggle against British colonialism.

The Left recognized, often grudgingly, that Gandhi possessed an unparalleled ability to mobilize the Indian masses. No Marxist theoretician, however brilliant, could match Gandhi’s capacity to bring millions of peasants, workers, women, and students into the streets. Working-class aspirations found expression in the formation of the All-India Trade Union Congress in 1921, and the Left worked within Congress-led movements even while criticizing their limitations.

The Congress Socialist Party, in particular, served as a bridge between Gandhian nationalism and socialist politics. Leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan, Lohia, and Acharya Narendra Dev were simultaneously committed Gandhians in their methods and socialists in their economic vision. Socialists within Congress were instrumental in pushing Gandhi toward the Quit India Movement in 1942, and they formed the backbone of underground resistance after the Congress leadership was arrested.

Even the orthodox Communists, despite their sharp criticisms, were not above working alongside Gandhian nationalists when circumstances demanded. In 1925, Gandhi gave space in his journal Young India to M.N. Roy’s writings, despite British official indignation. The All-India Kisan Sabha, though Communist-led, worked within the broader Congress framework during the late 1930s. And after independence, both Gandhian and Marxist traditions contributed elements to India’s constitutional framework and developmental policies.

An uneasy but productive tension 🔗

The relationship between Gandhi and the Indian Left was characterized by what might be called productive tension. Neither side ever fully persuaded the other, yet their ongoing debate enriched Indian political thought and practice. Gandhi’s engagement with socialist criticism pushed him toward more egalitarian positions over time, as reflected in the Karachi Resolution of 1931 with its promises of workers’ rights and land reform. The Left, for its part, was compelled to grapple seriously with questions of non-violence, mass mobilization, and the relationship between politics and ethics that Gandhi raised.

This complex legacy remains relevant today. The questions that divided Gandhi and the Left-about the role of religion in public life, the possibility of ethical capitalism, the path to economic development, and the means appropriate for social transformation-continue to animate political debates in contemporary India.

What do you think? Was Gandhi’s vision of trusteeship and village-based development hopelessly idealistic, or does it offer insights relevant to today’s crises of inequality and environmental destruction? Can the moral transformation Gandhi sought and the structural change the Left demanded ever be reconciled?

References

1. https://cpim.org/left-and-national-movement/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._N._Roy
3. https://politicsforindia.com/mn-roy-political-thoughts-psir/
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shripad_Amrit_Dange
5. https://cpim.org/communists-and-indian-freedom-struggle/
6. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ram-Manohar-Lohia
7. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/psp07/chapter/socialist-intervention-ram-manohar-lohia/
8. https://scroll.in/article/1073927/the-time-is-ripe-for-gandhis-philosophical-alternative-to-capitalism-and-communism
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhian_socialism
10. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/issues-in-news-dr-ram-manohar-lohia-relevance-of-his-thoughts
11. https://jacobin.com/2024/08/mn-roy-postcolonial-india-fascism