The Collaborationist Apostle: Gandhi’s 1918 Betrayal of Ahinsa

Mahatma Gandhi is remembered as the apostle of ahinsa and the leader who made non-violence the central weapon of India’s freedom struggle. Yet there is another, less discussed chapter of his political life. In 1918, while the First World War was raging and the British Empire urgently needed additional troops, Gandhi actively supported the British war effort and undertook a campaign to recruit Indians for military service.

In April 1918, Viceroy Lord Chelmsford convened a War Conference in Delhi. Britain was facing severe military pressure and wanted more troops from India. Gandhi attended the conference and proposed the argument that if Indians believed that the British connection had benefited India, then they had a duty to help the Empire in its hour of need. Gandhi consequently undertook to assist in recruiting Indians for the British Army.

Gandhi’s support did not remain confined to the conference room. He personally participated in a recruitment campaign in Gujarat. He discussed recruitment at Nadiad, spoke to members of his Ashram, addressed meetings at Kaira, Ras and Vasad, and on 22 June 1918 publicly appealed to people to enlist for war service. The documented activity extended from the middle to the end of June, showing that this was an organised campaign rather than a single casual statement.

The people Gandhi wanted to recruit were Indian men eligible for military service in the British-Indian Army. His objective was to strengthen the British war effort at a time when Britain urgently needed additional manpower. This was different from Gandhi’s earlier ambulance and stretcher-bearer activities, where Indians had served in non-combatant medical roles. In 1918, the objective was specifically army recruitment.

Loyalty to the Empire Brought No Freedom

Why did Gandhi support such recruitment? One important reason was his continuing belief that Indian loyalty to the British Empire would eventually be rewarded with political concessions and greater equality. His political calculation was simple: India would demonstrate loyalty when Britain needed help, and Britain would subsequently recognise India’s political claims. Gandhi also believed that military service could cultivate courage and discipline among Indians, qualities that he associated with the courage required for satyagraha.

This produced a striking contradiction. Gandhi personally rejected killing, yet he encouraged others to join an army whose purpose was to fight a war. His close friend Charles Freer Andrews questioned this position and wondered whether Indians who had forgotten the violence of war should first be encouraged to learn it and then be expected to reject it later.

The Indian contribution to the First World War was enormous. Approximately 1.1–1.4 million Indians participated in the war, with around 1.3 million serving overseas. The Indian military death toll is recorded at more than 74,000, with the British Parliamentary figure cited as 74,051. Indian soldiers fought in Europe as well as Mesopotamia, East Africa, Gallipoli, Palestine, Egypt and other theatres.

The human cost was therefore immense. More than 74,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives, while very large numbers were wounded. India was contributing its manpower and blood to a war being fought for an empire that still denied India political freedom. The spectacle was deeply paradoxical: Indians were being asked to fight and die for the British Empire while remaining subjects of that same empire.

The stronger criticism is therefore not that Gandhi personally recruited 1.3 million soldiers or caused 74,000 deaths. The stronger argument is that Gandhi lent his political influence and moral authority to the British recruitment effort at a critical moment of the war. He actively encouraged Indian men to enlist when Britain was seeking additional troops. In doing so, he became an important Indian supporter of the imperial war effort, even though he personally remained opposed to killing.

Gandhi expected a political reward for this loyalty. His calculation was that Indian sacrifice would strengthen India’s claim to equal political status and eventually freedom. In other words, the implicit bargain was: India supports Britain in its hour of crisis; Britain recognises India’s loyalty and advances India’s political rights.

India Gave Blood, Britain Gave Repression

The bargain did not work as Gandhi had hoped. The First World War ended in November 1918, but India did not immediately receive the political freedom that Gandhi expected. Instead, the post-war period brought greater repression. The Rowlatt legislation of 1919 was followed by the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, when British troops fired upon an unarmed gathering in Amritsar. The source identifies this period as a decisive moment in Gandhi’s abandonment of his earlier faith in the benign character of British rule.

This failure appears to have contributed to a significant evolution in Gandhi’s thinking. By 1928, Gandhi looked back critically on the First World War. He stated that the war had not benefited even the so-called victors and said that, with his then-existing views, he would no longer assist the government in another war; instead, he would try to persuade people to withhold their assistance.

The episode therefore represents one of the most striking contradictions in Gandhi’s political journey. The future apostle of ahimsa once supported the military recruitment of Indians for the British Empire. He believed that Indian loyalty and sacrifice would bring political freedom. Indians contributed enormous manpower and suffered enormous casualties, but the expected political reward did not immediately follow.

The historical lesson is not that Gandhi personally caused the deaths of 74,000 Indians. The evidence does not support that claim. The more defensible and perhaps more uncomfortable conclusion is this: Gandhi actively supported the British war effort in 1918, participated in recruitment campaigns, and encouraged Indians to enlist because he believed that loyalty to the Empire would ultimately help India achieve political freedom. The sacrifice was real; the expected reward was not.

The man who would later lead India against British rule once appealed to Indians to fight for the British Empire—believing that sacrifice for the Empire would eventually earn India freedom.

Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck later remarked that Britain “couldn’t have won wars if they hadn’t had the Indian Army. The Marxist historians call Gandhi as collaborators of the Britshers. The fact remains that this act of siding with the Britishers led to strengthening of the Empire and furthering their interests for which Gandhi ji always described himself as His Majesty’s loyal and obedient servant.

Rajiv Tuli is the Chairman of Suruchi Prakashan, known for publishing works on Indian culture, history, and national thought. He is actively involved in public discourse and the promotion of Indian civilisational and cultural ideas. Follow him on X: @rajivtuli69