Bhagat Singh vs. Gandhi: Violence and Non-Violence in India’s Freedom Struggle

India’s freedom struggle was not a singular movement but a confluence of diverse philosophies and strategies. Two of its most iconic figures-Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh-embodied fundamentally different approaches to achieving independence. While both shared an unwavering commitment to liberating India from British rule, their methods and ideological foundations diverged sharply. Understanding this divergence offers profound insights into the complex nature of India’s path to freedom.

Gandhi’s critique of revolutionary violence 🔗

In 1909, Gandhi penned Hind Swaraj aboard a ship returning to South Africa, directly responding to the growing influence of revolutionary nationalism among Indian youth in London. The assassination of Sir William Curzon-Wyllie by Madan Lal Dhingra had deeply disturbed Gandhi, prompting him to articulate his philosophical opposition to political violence.

Gandhi’s central argument was that violence represented a “suicidal policy” for India. He believed that the force of love and compassion was infinitely more powerful than armed resistance. More importantly, he argued that violent methods were not merely immoral but fundamentally counterproductive-they could never deliver genuine freedom.

The inseparability of means and ends 🔗

At the heart of Gandhi’s philosophy lay the conviction that means and ends are inseparable. A nation seeking justice and freedom could not achieve these goals through unjust or oppressive methods. Victory achieved through hatred or violence would ultimately prove hollow because it would perpetuate the very attitudes that created oppression in the first place.

Gandhi was deeply suspicious of the revolutionaries’ uncritical desire to emulate Western methods of political change. He saw in their advocacy of violence an attempt to fight imperialism with imperialism’s own tools. True Swaraj, in his view, required not just political independence but a complete transformation of Indian society through ethical means.

Bhagat Singh’s criticism of Congress and Gandhi 🔗

Bhagat Singh’s relationship with Gandhian politics was complicated. Coming from a family steeped in nationalist activities, he initially supported the Non-Cooperation Movement launched in 1920. However, Gandhi’s abrupt withdrawal of the movement following the Chauri Chaura incident in 1922-where a mob burned a police station, killing several policemen-proved to be a turning point for the young revolutionary.

For Bhagat Singh, this withdrawal represented a fundamental weakness in Congress’s approach. He interpreted it as evidence that the Congress leadership prioritised “conciliation” over genuine revolution. The incident shattered his faith in non-violent methods and pushed him toward revolutionary nationalism.

A critique of middle-class leadership 🔗

In his last testament, “To Young Political Workers” written in February 1931, Bhagat Singh articulated his sharpest criticism of the Congress. He argued that the real revolutionary forces-the peasantry and industrial workers-had never been genuinely mobilised by Congress leaders. The movement, in his assessment, depended primarily on middle-class shopkeepers and capitalists who would never risk their property for true social transformation.

Bhagat Singh believed that Congress could not provide revolutionary leadership because it did not represent the interests of India’s toiling masses. He advocated for a socialist revolution that would not merely transfer power from British to Indian hands but fundamentally reconstruct society on a new basis where exploitation of man by man would become impossible.

Appreciation amidst disagreement 🔗

Despite their profound philosophical differences, there existed mutual respect between Gandhi and the revolutionaries. Gandhi consistently admired the courage, commitment, and sacrifice of revolutionaries while maintaining his unequivocal disapproval of their methods.

When Gandhi arrived at the Karachi Congress session in 1931, days after Bhagat Singh’s execution, he faced hostile slogans and black flags from angry youth. Rather than responding with anger, Gandhi had words of appreciation for their dignified protest. He stated that one’s head bends before Bhagat Singh’s bravery and sacrifice, though he wished for what he called the greater bravery-that of the meek and non-violent.

The Karachi resolution 🔗

Gandhi himself drafted the Congress resolution on Bhagat Singh’s execution, which captured this complex position: the Congress dissociated itself from political violence while placing on record its admiration for the bravery and sacrifice of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. The resolution mourned their deaths while criticising the government for losing a golden opportunity to promote goodwill between the two nations.

Similarly, Bhagat Singh acknowledged Gandhi’s role in awakening mass political consciousness. His criticisms were directed not at Gandhi’s sincerity but at what he perceived as the limitations of the Congress’s class character and its unwillingness to mobilise truly revolutionary forces.

Two strands of the independence struggle 🔗

Gandhi and Bhagat Singh represented two fundamentally different strands of India’s freedom movement. Their divergence was not merely tactical but deeply philosophical and ideological.

Bhagat Singh’s socialist vision 🔗

Bhagat Singh was attracted to anarchism and communism, reading extensively the works of Bakunin, Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky. His organisation, the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, explicitly adopted socialist principles. For Bhagat Singh, political revolution was merely the preliminary step toward the larger goal of social reconstruction on a Marxist basis.

He envisioned an India free from class exploitation, caste oppression, and religious bigotry. In his famous statement during the Assembly Bomb Case, he declared that revolution meant changing the present order based on manifest injustice-where the peasant who grows corn for all starves with his family, and the weaver who supplies textile fabrics has not enough to cover his own body.

Gandhi’s moral framework 🔗

Gandhi’s approach was rooted in spiritual and moral principles. He believed that Satyagraha-devotion to truth through non-violent resistance-was not merely a political tactic but a way of life that could transform both the practitioner and the opponent. His philosophy emphasised self-purification, voluntary suffering, and the conversion of adversaries rather than their destruction.

For Gandhi, the question was not simply about driving out the British but about what kind of society India would become. He feared that violent methods would create a cycle of retribution and leave deep wounds in the national psyche. Only through adherence to ahimsa could India achieve true freedom-freedom not just from foreign rule but from the violence that corrupts both the oppressor and the oppressed.

Complementary contributions 🔗

Despite their ideological opposition, both movements contributed to India’s eventual independence in complementary ways. Bhagat Singh’s martyrdom expanded the national base for the independence struggle, particularly among the youth, which in turn strengthened Congress’s bargaining power with the British. Meanwhile, Gandhi’s mass mobilisation provided a platform that gave revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh greater visibility and popular support.

The Director of the Intelligence Bureau noted that by the late 1920s, Bhagat Singh’s photograph was on sale in every city and township, rivalling in popularity even that of Gandhi himself. This suggests that the Indian public did not necessarily see the two approaches as mutually exclusive but rather as different expressions of the same fundamental desire for freedom.

The debate between violence and non-violence in political struggle remains relevant today. Gandhi and Bhagat Singh, though they walked different paths, were united in their vision of an India free from colonial subjugation. Their legacy reminds us that the struggle for justice can take many forms, and that disagreement over methods need not diminish mutual respect or shared commitment to a greater cause.

What do you think? Can revolutionary violence ever be morally justified in the pursuit of freedom, or does the means inevitably shape the ends? How might India’s post-independence trajectory have differed if Bhagat Singh had lived to see freedom?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hind_Swaraj_or_Indian_Home_Rule
2. https://philosophy.institute/gandhian-philosophy/gandhis-hind-swaraj-indian-self-rule/
3. https://www.clearias.com/bhagat-singh/
4. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1931/02/02.htm
5. https://www.99notes.in/upsc-notes/general-studies-1/history/modern-india/emergence-of-gandhi/
6. https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/gandhi_bhagatsingh.php
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh
8. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mahatma-Gandhi/Resistance-and-results
9. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/comment/bhagat-singh-gandhi-and-the-british-58033/