Revisiting Gandhi’s role in the Boer War: Loyalty to empire or moral contradiction?

Counterview News    

A recent article by noted academic Prof. Hemantkumar Shah is likely to spark fresh debate over Mahatma Gandhi’s controversial role during the Second Boer War (1899–1902) in South Africa. Writing in Gujarati, Shah explores how Gandhi—still years away from becoming the "Mahatma"—chose to support the British Empire over the Dutch-descended Boer republics, despite personally sympathizing with the Boers’ struggle for freedom.

During his 21-year stay in South Africa, Gandhi fought for the civil rights of Indians. Yet, when war broke out between the British and the Boers, Gandhi sided with the colonial rulers. He organized an Indian ambulance corps to assist wounded British soldiers and even sought military-style training to serve effectively.

“Even though Gandhi wrote that his ‘sympathies were entirely with the Boers’, he still chose to support the British. He believed that as subjects of the British Empire, Indians had a duty to help the state in times of war,” writes Prof. Shah.

Gandhi argued that such loyalty might eventually earn Indians greater civil rights under British rule. However, as Prof. Shah notes, that expectation was betrayed: “The British not only denied equal rights to Indians after the war, but they later aligned with the Boers to further marginalize the Indian community in South Africa.”

Prof. Shah’s article highlights the moral complexity in Gandhi’s early political thought. He quotes Gandhi as saying, “Citizens must support the state even when its actions are not always just”—a stance that may seem at odds with the later Gandhi who championed non-violent resistance against unjust authority.

The article also draws a provocative parallel with the 2003 Iraq War, suggesting that mass protests by American citizens against their government’s unjust military actions may have aligned more closely with Gandhi’s mature philosophy of civil resistance than Gandhi’s own actions during the Boer War.

Prof. Shah raises a critical question: “If a state wages war unjustly, lies to its people, and suppresses truth, should its citizens still remain loyal? Or does moral duty demand resistance?”

As the debate on Gandhi’s legacy continues, this revisiting of his lesser-known choices in South Africa offers a deeper understanding of the evolution—and contradictions—within his ideology.