Undermined India’s National Interest for Pakistan: Gandhi’s Unilateral Affection for Pakistan Misplaced?
Dr. Buragadda Srinadh
Gandhi stood for peace, justice, and communal harmony. But when it came to his actions during and after Partition, a hard question emerges: Was his affection for Pakistan and Muslims one-sided, and ultimately harmful to India’s interests?
He consistently reached out to Muslim leaders, even when they rejected dialogue. He opposed Partition, yet when it happened, he continued to preach reconciliation—even as Hindus and Sikhs were being slaughtered in Pakistan. He fasted to stop Hindu retaliation in India, but did not fast against the brutalities committed against Hindus in Pakistan. He demanded that India pay Pakistan ₹55 crores, even when Pakistan was actively waging war in Kashmir. He did not ask Pakistan to honor its borders, halt its invasion, or ensure the safety of minorities on its soil.
This raises difficult questions:
- Why was Gandhi willing to sacrifice goodwill—and even India’s security—for a moral ideal that was not reciprocated?
- Why didn’t he hold Pakistan and Muslim leaders equally accountable for violence and betrayal?
- Was this truly compassion—or a dangerous blind spot?
Affection and moral leadership are powerful, but only when paired with justice and balance. In Gandhi’s case, his unilateral empathy was not met with equal responsibility from the other side. And India paid the price.
Even today, the consequences of that imbalance—in Kashmir, in communal distrust, in unresolved border issues—still ripple through the nation.
When Pakistan-backed tribal forces invaded Kashmir in October 1947, Gandhi stayed largely silent. He did not publicly condemn the invasion, nor did he fast against this blatant act of aggression. He did not demand that Pakistan vacate Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) or honor the international boundary.
And yet, he went on a fast unto death to pressure India to pay ₹55 crores to Pakistan. Money that he knew Pakistan could use to buy arms—possibly against India itself.
But was this truly in India’s national interest?
Gandhi and the Pakistan Dilemma: Unanswered Questions
Failure to Prevent Partition and Religious Divide
Gandhi’s lifelong vision was of a united India—Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and others coexisting under one nation. But by 1947, the momentum for Partition, driven by communal tensions and political brinkmanship, was too strong. Gandhi opposed it until the very end, but lacked the leverage to stop it.
Nehru and Patel had already conceded under pressure from Jinnah and Mountbatten. The Muslim League’s demand for a separate nation could not be reconciled with Gandhi’s idealistic vision. He failed to persuade Muslim leadership, especially Jinnah, who believed Muslims would be politically marginalized in a Hindu-majority India.
Hindu Genocide and Violence in Pakistan – Gandhi Remained Silent
Why didn’t Gandhi fast to protect Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan?
Post-Partition violence was catastrophic. In areas like West Punjab and Sindh, large-scale massacres and forced conversions of Hindus and Sikhs occurred. Gandhi could not prevent this bloodshed. His power lay in moral authority, not military might.
While he went on hunger strikes to stop riots in India, there was little he could do across the border, where India had no jurisdiction—and where Pakistan’s new regime was unstable and complicit in violence.
Why Gandhi Never Went to Pakistan (Even During the Bloodshed)
He chose to stay in Calcutta and later Delhi during and after Partition, trying to stop riots in India. His logic: “Let me stop the fire here first.”
But here’s the problem: while he fasted to stop Hindu retaliation in India, he did not go to Pakistan to stop Muslim mobs from massacring Hindus and Sikhs.
Criticism: If his mission was peace and justice, why only on one side? Why protect Muslims in India but not Hindus in Pakistan?
No Influence in Pakistan
Gandhi had no political capital in Pakistan. The Muslim League had rejected his vision. Jinnah saw him as irrelevant. His presence might have been ignored—or worse, endangered.
Counterpoint: But Gandhi didn’t need political power. His strength was moral. If he could calm Calcutta, why not even try in Lahore or Karachi?
Instead of confronting Pakistan’s crimes, Gandhi focused on repairing India’s conscience. His selective pressure was extremely sensitive to Muslim suffering in India, but largely silent on Hindu and Sikh suffering in Pakistan.
He believed Hindus had a moral duty to rise above revenge. But morality without balance becomes bias.
He never fasted to demand:
- Safety for Hindus in Pakistan
- Justice for the Partition massacres
- A halt to Pakistan’s aggression in Kashmir
The Pakistan Invasion of Kashmir – And Gandhi’s Silence
When tribal militias backed by Pakistan invaded Kashmir in October 1947, it was an act of war. India responded militarily, and Kashmir acceded to India.
But Gandhi did not lead public opinion or condemnation. His silence suggests either strategic restraint or an inability to engage with the new post-Partition geopolitical realities.
When evil forces rise—and Pakistan’s invasion certainly was evil—can they be defeated with moral gestures alone?
The ₹55 Crore Transfer and Gandhi’s Controversial Fast
Why was moral pressure used to secure payment to Pakistan, but not to demand that Pakistan respect borders or stop violence?
Perhaps the most confounding act was Gandhi’s fast unto death in January 1948 to ensure that India transferred ₹55 crores (550 million rupees) to Pakistan—part of the partition settlement.
Why didn’t Gandhi make the payment conditional on Pakistan stopping its invasion of Kashmir?
Why did he do it?
- Moral Principle: Gandhi believed withholding the payment was unjust and violated the partition agreement.
- Communal Harmony: He feared withholding funds would provoke riots in India.
- Personal Conviction: Gandhi believed India must act morally, even if the other side did not.
But here’s the rub: this decision was deeply controversial—and arguably naive. Pakistan was buying arms, some of which were used in Kashmir. Many Indian leaders, including Patel, opposed the transfer.
Could Gandhi have conditioned the payment on Pakistan honoring the border?
Absolutely. But Gandhi was not a realpolitik strategist. He operated from moral absolutism, often disconnected from the brutal realities of power.
Against the Spirit of the Bhagavad Gita?
Gandhi revered the Bhagavad Gita—but arguably misapplied it. In the Gita, Krishna exhorts Arjuna to fight—not out of hatred—but because dharma demands it.
Evil must be resisted—not appeased.
Gandhi chose idealism over realism, principle over pragmatism. And India paid the price—with blood, with territory, and with a conflict that continues to this day.
This is not about disrespecting Gandhi. It’s about asking: What did India need at that hour—a saint, or a statesman?
