Article 109

Gandhi, Nehru, and the Betrayal of a Civilization

India’s tragedy in 1947 was not only the bloodbath of Partition but the choices of its so-called founding fathers. Gandhi, lionized as Mahatma, became “great” not by protecting Hindus but by sacrificing them to a permanent conflict. At the time of Partition, there were nearly half a billion Hindus in the subcontinent. Today, their numbers have grown to more than 1.2 billion. But demographics cannot disguise the scars left on their civilization by the catastrophic decisions of Gandhi and Nehru.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted Pakistan, and B.R. Ambedkar—clear-eyed and unsentimental—wanted a total exchange of populations to end communal strife. Gandhi, however, insisted Muslims must remain in India. That single decision embedded a hostile minority inside India’s body politic, guaranteeing decades of riots, separatism, and terrorism. Without this built-in contradiction, India today might stand shoulder to shoulder with China and the United States as a superpower, rather than wasting energy on eternal internal conflict.

The violence of Partition is usually narrated as a tragic accident of history, a regrettable clash of passions, or a result of British haste. That is false. Partition was the culmination of a century of separatist politics nurtured by Muslim elites and accommodated by Hindu sentimentalists. Jinnah was ruthless: he wanted his Pakistan, and he got it. Ambedkar was pragmatic: he knew a stable India could not be built on wishful thinking. He proposed what every rational mind would see as the only long-term safeguard—complete population transfer, so that the bleeding wound of communal hatred could be stitched clean. Gandhi, in contrast, played the saint. He wanted Muslims in India to remain as symbols of his moral largesse, even if it meant Hindus would pay in blood for generations.

It is no accident that India still bleeds. From Direct Action Day in 1946, when Muslim mobs massacred Hindus in Calcutta, to the pogroms and refugee trains of 1947, to Kashmir in 1990, to the terrorist attacks that continue to scar the country—India has lived the consequences of Gandhi’s sentimentality. His sainthood came at the expense of the security of Hindus. He clothed himself in the robes of the Mahatma while the common Hindu was left to bury the dead and carry the wounds.

Nehru, India’s first prime minister, was no better. Groomed in England, a self-styled aristocrat, he fancied himself as belonging to a higher Anglo-Saxonized elite. His disdain for Hindu culture was thinly veiled, his affection for Kashmiri lineage and Muslim camaraderie never hidden. When Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1947, Nehru’s indecision and lethargy ceded half the state. Instead of swift military action, he dallied in romantic diplomacy, dragging the dispute to the United Nations—an institution where Pakistan’s allies ensured the matter would remain unresolved forever. India has bled in Kashmir ever since.

Nehru’s arrogance cost India dearly again with China. When Zhou Enlai visited India in the 1950s, Nehru insulted him as rustic, condescending to him as if India alone carried civilizational refinement. The insult was not forgotten. In 1962, Mao and Zhou struck, and India’s army was humiliated on the Himalayan front. Nehru, who had fancied himself the great statesman of Asia, died a broken man, his illusions shattered, his people betrayed.

Behind the public image of saintly sacrifice and elite cosmopolitanism lay something darker. Gandhi’s moralism was less about truth than about theatrics—hunger strikes and hand-spun cloth while millions starved. Nehru’s sophistication was less about governance than about personal vanity. Whispers about his intimate liaisons, including with Edwina Mountbatten, were not mere gossip; they reflected a man who considered himself above restraint. Together, Gandhi and Nehru gave India not liberation but perpetual weakness: a nation that won independence politically but remained enslaved strategically and morally.

Ambedkar stood apart. Born an untouchable, he knew cruelty firsthand. He had no patience for illusions. He warned that Gandhi’s appeasement of Muslims was suicide for Hindus. He insisted that Hindus needed legal safeguards, social reform, and hard political decisions—not spinning wheels or sentimental fasts. Unlike Gandhi or Nehru, he never courted sainthood or aristocracy. He dealt with power as it was, not as it should be.

And yet, in the mythology of modern India, Ambedkar is paradoxically both glorified and blamed. He is celebrated as the “Father of the Constitution” but also blamed for the mess that document has become. The truth is far more complex—and far less flattering to the rest of India’s elite.

India’s Constitution is not Ambedkar’s masterpiece; it is not even his child. He was its administrator, its general manager. The document itself was not born of a single vision but is the result of a grotesque culinary experiment: a dish prepared by three hundred chefs. Every cook threw in his own spice, borrowed from Britain, Ireland, Canada, or America. The result is not nourishment but poison: it tastes like human waste, stinks to high heavens, and threatens to kill everyone who consumes it. To call this toxic stew Ambedkar’s creation is to confuse the waiter with the chef. He did not design it—he merely served it.

Worse, the dish itself is alien to India’s soil. The Constitution is a copy of Anglo-Saxon culture—premised on the adversarial system, on litigation as the organizing principle of society, on the assumption that conflict and competition must be the axis of human affairs. This is inherently incompatible with the Indic concept of Dharma, which for 5,000 years has been India’s organic constitution. Dharma is not a set of adversarial clauses, not a courtroom where lawyers duel endlessly, but a civilizational ethos: a balance of duties, obligations, and moral order. It fits naturally with the Hindu temperament, with the Indic way of life. To substitute Dharma with Anglo-Saxon litigation culture was not modernization—it was mutilation. India abandoned its own organic philosophy and swallowed a dish that will never digest.

Ambedkar understood this tension. He was too practical to fight against the tide, so he managed the process, but he cannot be blamed for the monstrosity itself. The responsibility lies with India’s elite, who imported alien recipes and forced the country to eat them. Seventy-five years later, India is still suffering indigestion.

Gandhi’s genius was not moral truth but political theater. He knew how to dramatize weakness into spectacle—fasts, salt marches, hand-spun khadi—all of it carefully choreographed for maximum effect. The world mistook his performances for sainthood, and many Hindus mistook them for strength. But symbolism is not substance. A nation of half a billion could not be built on loincloths and slogans. Gandhi’s theater produced sympathy abroad but chaos at home. His insistence on keeping Muslims within India was not born of rational calculation but of his craving for moral grandeur, for being remembered as a saint who embraced even those who rejected him. In the process, Hindus inherited endless communal wounds.

Ambedkar, by contrast, despised theatrics. He did not fast or spin cotton; he read, argued, legislated, and demanded accountability. He told Gandhi to his face that Hinduism’s caste system was its greatest shame and that appeasing Muslim intransigence would destroy the country. He saw clearly what the sentimentalist refused to see: that without a clean break—through population exchange, through decisive reform, through hard boundaries—India would live forever in conflict. He was right, and Gandhi was disastrously wrong.

Nehru was a different creature altogether. If Gandhi was theater and Ambedkar was realism, Nehru was dynasty. Educated in Harrow and Cambridge, he cultivated the airs of an English gentleman. He looked at Hindu India not as his home but as his inheritance to reshape. His disdain for the common Hindu was matched only by his infatuation with aristocracy—British on one side, Kashmiri on the other. He fancied himself the bridge between East and West, but in truth he was a man uncomfortable in either.

Nowhere was Nehru’s betrayal clearer than in Kashmir. In October 1947, when Pakistani irregulars invaded, the Indian Army could have swept them back swiftly. But Nehru hesitated, dithering with words while others called for action. By the time the army moved, half the state was already lost. Then came his greatest blunder: appealing to the United Nations. In a single stroke, Nehru internationalized a problem that could have been solved on the battlefield. Kashmir became frozen, unresolved, a wound that festers to this day. His vanity, his obsession with diplomacy, his refusal to make quick and ruthless decisions—all of it cost India dearly.

Then came China. Nehru fancied himself the architect of Asian solidarity, the voice of the Non-Aligned World. He dismissed warnings from his generals and intelligence reports that Mao’s China was building roads and mobilizing in Tibet. He thought slogans like “Hindi-Chini bhai bhai” would deter an empire trained in realpolitik. In 1959, he humiliated Zhou Enlai publicly, mocking him as rustic and uncultured when the Chinese premier visited Delhi. Arrogance replaced prudence. In 1962, the reckoning came. Mao struck in the Himalayas, and India’s army was routed. Thousands died. The “elder statesman of Asia” was exposed as a man of illusions. Nehru aged overnight, broken, defeated, and discredited.

But Nehru’s most poisonous legacy was not his blunders in war or diplomacy. It was dynasty. Instead of building institutions, he built a family throne. He trained his daughter Indira in the arts of manipulation and centralization, not in the ethics of service. What began as a republic of citizens became a monarchy in all but name, where loyalty to the Nehru-Gandhi clan mattered more than loyalty to the nation. Indira inherited not just her father’s arrogance but also his disdain for restraint. She crushed opposition, censored press, imposed Emergency, and left the republic weaker than when she found it. A true democrat builds successors; Nehru built heirs.

Ambedkar had warned of this too. He spoke of the dangers of hero-worship in politics, of turning leaders into saints and families into dynasties. His words were ignored. India replaced British monarchy with Congress monarchy. The results were predictable: stagnation, corruption, and authoritarianism, all cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy.

The consequence of ignoring Ambedkar’s call for population exchange and embracing Gandhi’s sentimentalism was visible in every decade that followed. Riots in Jabalpur, Bhagalpur, and Gujarat. The rise of Islamist separatism in Kashmir. Bombings in Mumbai. The partition of the mind never ended; it merely seeped into daily life. Gandhi’s insistence on moral grandeur had made Hindus hostages to endless appeasement. Nehru’s obsession with diplomacy and dynasty made them vulnerable abroad and divided at home.

And all along, the Constitution—this dish prepared by three hundred chefs—provided no remedy. Instead of rooting India in Dharma, it shackled it with Anglo-Saxon adversarialism. Every crisis became litigation, every grievance a lawsuit, every institution a courtroom proxy. India became a republic not of duties but of petitions. The 5,000-year-old wisdom of Dharma—balance, duty, obligation, restraint—was replaced by endless adversarial procedure. The result was paralysis.

Ambedkar, the supposed author of this mess, was in truth merely the manager. He administered a kitchen where 300 cooks threw in foreign recipes, and the country was forced to consume the poison. He cannot be blamed for the dish. But he can be remembered for the warnings: that hero-worship would corrupt politics, that appeasement would destroy unity, and that without ruthless reform India would never become strong.Seventy-five years later, his warnings read like prophecy. Hindus today are 1.2 billion strong, but numbers alone do not guarantee security. Gandhi’s theatrics and Nehru’s dynasty left scars too deep for demographics to heal. India might rise, but it rises in spite of its founding fathers, not because of them.

History is cruel in its arithmetic. Gandhi gave India sentimentality, Nehru gave it aristocracy, but only Ambedkar gave it realism. He warned that India could not be governed by illusions. He said Hindus could not afford to leave Muslims as a permanently hostile minority within their borders. He said hero-worship of leaders would rot the republic into tyranny. He said caste was a poison that had to be eliminated for national strength. And he knew that India’s spiritual inheritance of Dharma was superior to imported Anglo-Saxon adversarialism. Every one of these warnings has proven true.

The tragedy is that Ambedkar was ignored. Gandhi’s sentimentalism made him a saint, Nehru’s elitism made him prime minister, but Ambedkar’s realism made him expendable. The masses were given slogans of “ahimsa” and “socialism,” while the hard prescriptions were dismissed. India was asked to eat a dish cooked by three hundred chefs—poisonous, stinking, and incompatible with its civilizational digestion—while abandoning the organic nourishment of Dharma. The consequences are written in blood and chaos across seventy-five years.

Consider the contrast with China. In 1947, India and China were both exhausted civilizations, poor, broken, and scarred by foreign domination. China, however, made brutal decisions. It cleansed its borders of ambiguity, crushed separatism, and centralized authority in ruthless fashion. It built a state that, whatever its flaws, was coherent. India, by contrast, was left permanently incoherent: Kashmir unresolved, minorities appeased, caste politics weaponized, and the Constitution a borrowed hybrid that inspired litigation rather than unity. Today China stands as a rival to the United States, while India is still fighting shadows at home.

Or consider America. The United States, for all its hypocrisies, was ruthless in its foundations. It displaced populations, eliminated hostile minorities, and wrote a Constitution suited to its temperament. It defined itself clearly: Anglo-Protestant in culture, federal in structure, capitalist in economics. By the mid-20th century, it had become the most powerful nation on earth. India, in the same period, wandered between Gandhian theatrics and Nehruvian aristocracy, both allergic to clarity. It wanted to be both Hindu and secular, both socialist and capitalist, both national and internationalist. In the end, it became neither.

Ambedkar saw through this confusion. He understood that Dharma—the 5,000-year-old civilizational ethic—was India’s true Constitution. Not a courtroom document, but a way of life rooted in duties, obligations, and balance. Dharma is not adversarial; it does not assume that every human relation must be a lawsuit waiting to happen. It assumes that human beings are bound by obligations as much as by rights. That the ruler owes protection to the ruled, the householder owes charity to the poor, the teacher owes wisdom to the student, and the individual owes self-restraint to society. Anglo-Saxon adversarialism, by contrast, assumes permanent conflict, where law is a weapon and litigation the path to justice. That may suit England or America; it has never suited India.

The result is that India, a civilization of 1.2 billion Hindus today, still lacks the coherence of power. Its numbers are vast, but its unity is fragile. Its economy is rising, but its politics is fractured. It is a nation of extraordinary potential, trapped by the illusions of its founding fathers. Gandhi’s moral theater and Nehru’s dynastic vanity left scars deeper than colonialism itself. Ambedkar alone offered the remedy, but India spat it out.Seventy-five years later, the lesson should be obvious. If India wishes to rise as a superpower equal to China or the United States, it must return to its own civilizational roots. It must abandon the poison dish of Anglo-Saxon constitutionalism and rediscover the organic nourishment of Dharma. It must embrace Ambedkar’s realism about hostile minorities, not Gandhi’s theatrics of false unity. It must abandon Nehru’s dynastic worship and replace it with institutions rooted in duty. It must recognize that greatness will never come from imported recipes but only from its own ancient kitchen.

The Hindus of 1947 were half a billion strong; today they are more than 1.2 billion. Numbers alone, however, do not secure destiny. Civilization requires clarity. Gandhi gave India fog, Nehru gave it vanity, but Ambedkar gave it the beginnings of truth. If India has the courage to strip away the myths, to discard the poisonous dish of 300 chefs, to rediscover the wisdom of Dharma, then it may yet fulfill its potential as a superpower. If not, it will remain a giant in chains—vast in numbers, shallow in strength, and forever haunted by the mistakes of 1947.

History, when written without incense and hagiography, will not spare Gandhi or Nehru. The “Mahatma” and the “Pandit” will be remembered not as saviors but as architects of weakness. Ambedkar, the supposed scapegoat, will be remembered as the only one who saw the future clearly.

Ambedkar, B.R. Pakistan or the Partition of India. Bombay: Thackers, 1945.

Ambedkar, B.R. The Annihilation of Caste. Bombay: 1936.

Guha, Ramachandra. India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy. New Delhi: HarperCollins, 2007.

Jalal, Ayesha. The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League, and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Khosla, Madhav. India’s Founding Moment: The Constitution of a Most Surprising Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020.

Menon, V.P. The Story of the Integration of the Indian States. Bombay: Orient Longmans, 1956.

Noorani, A.G. The Kashmir Dispute: 1947–2012. 2 vols. New Delhi: Tulika Books, 2013.

Smith, Donald Eugene. India as a Secular State. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.

Wolpert, Stanley. Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Wolpert, Stanley. Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Maxwell, Neville. India’s China War. London: Jonathan Cape, 1970.