Note: this answer is long (even by my standards!), but if you care as much about this issue as you claim, you should read fully.

But if you haven’t read, don’t comment.

So, apparently, some people think that Gandhi was responsible for the death of Bhagat Singh because ‘if Bhagat Singh became more popular then Gandhi would not be Father of the Nation’ or that ‘if Bhagat Singh gave India independence then Nehru wouldn’t be the first Prime Minister.’

The question description is ridiculous! Seriously, where do people get such ideas from? I think this is because people have not bothered to read about Gandhi and his ideologies. It’s easy to believe in juicy conspiracy theories since they are so exciting, right?

Okay, let’s read something today. Maybe this will help to put some confusion to rest forever. In fact, I am not even going to answer this myself. Let Mahatma Gandhi speak for himself. That is best!

Gandhi spoke this on a public meeting on 7-Mar-1931:

The next question is about Bhagat Singh and others who are under sentence to death. How can there be peace, I am asked, when a sentence of death is hanging over the heads of these patriots? It is unfortunate that the young men distributing these pamphlets should not understand such a simple thing. They ought to understand that we have entered into no peace treaty. It is a provisional, temporary settlement we have arrived at. I beseech the young men not to bid goodbye to common sense, to cool courage, to patience, to reason.

I have claimed to be a young man of 62. But even if I were to be labelled as a dilapidated old fogey, I have a right to appeal to your good sense. I do not want you to take for granted all that old men say to you, but I want you to consider it and weigh it, and if you find that we ‘old’ men have bungled, that we have been guilty of weakness get us to abdicate, and assume the reins yourselves. But that presupposes cool courage and solid common sense.

But let me tell you why Bhagat Singh and the rest have not been released. Maybe, if you had been negotiating you might have secured better terms from the Viceroy, but we the Working Committee would secure no more than what we have. I may tell you that throughout the negotiations I was not acting on my own, I was backed by the whole Working Committee. We brought all the pressure we could to bear on our negotiations and satisfied ourselves with what in justice we could have under the provisional settlement. We could not as negotiators of the provisional truce forget our pledge of truth and non-violence, forget the bounds of justice.

But it is still open to us to secure the release of all you have named—and that can be done if you will implement the settlement. Let ‘Young India’ stand by the settlement and fulfil all its conditions, and if, God willing, Bhagat Singh and others are alive when we have arrived at the proper stage, they would not only be saved from the gallows but released.

But I will address to ‘Young India’ a word of warning. These things are sooner asked for than obtained. You want to secure the freedom of those condemned of violence. There is nothing wrong about it. My creed of non-violence does not favour the punishment of thieves and dacoits and even murderers. I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows, much less a brave man like Bhagat Singh. But I tell you, even you could not save them unless you fulfil the conditions of the settlement. You cannot do so by violent means.

If you pin your faith to violence, take it from me that you will not only not secure Bhagat Singh’s release but will have to sacrifice thousands of Bhagat Singhs. I was not prepared to do so, and hence I preferred the way of peace, of non-violence. The way that you have adopted has been on trial for centuries and history records numerous instances of the truth that those who use the sword shall perish by the sword. You will not stop at using the violent weapon against your rulers, you will use it against your brothers and sisters too, and others of your way of thinking will use it against you.

I beseech you then, if you want the release of the prisoners, to change your methods, to accept the settlement, and then come and ask me about the Garhwalis and Bhagat Singh. Come to me six months hence, after you have implemented the settlement and gained in strength, and ask me the question you are asking today and I promise to satisfy you.

Remember that when Bhagat Singh’s trial and imperative execution was under the talks, that time was also when Gandhi and Irwin, the Viceroy were engaged in a considerably important pact for India at that time.

Bhagat Singh was 23 when he died.

23! At that age, it is very difficult to judge what is right and wrong. Bhagat Singh was a patriot, yes, but I think he acted out of rage and impatience. He viewed the British as the enemy (something which Gandhi didn’t).

Gandhi, being more mature and experienced, and working for years in South Africa and India, understood that the British people aren’t the real enemy, the colonial system is! Gandhi was working against colonialism. It was important because, had the British not occupied India, some other European power would have!

There were no sympathisers for the Indian cause, and the “white men” thought that they were civilising Indians and Africans. Gandhi played a significant role in bringing down that impression and showing the world how bad colonialism can be.

Do you know how difficult it can be to change a mindset? Ask the feminists, who have been fighting since ages against patriarchy. When your family says that a girl should not go out late at night, the family is not the enemy, patriarchy is. But the little girl thinks that her family is her enemy. Similarly, British weren’t the real enemy, colonialism was! But Bhagat Singh, naively, believed that killing the British people would help us secure our independence.

Gandhi was fighting the real enemy by showing how bad colonialism can be! But it takes real maturity to know that.

Gandhi, being a voice of non-violence, tried to save Bhagat Singh

In an interview, Gandhi clearly said -

I said [to the Viceroy] about Bhagat Singh: “He is undoubtedly a brave man but I would certainly say that he is not in his right mind. However, this is the evil of capital punishment, that it gives no opportunity to such a man to reform himself. I am putting this matter before you as a humanitarian issue and desire suspension of sentence in order that there may not be unnecessary turmoil in the country.”

Even before that, the Viceroy had also corroborated this fact that Gandhi indeed tried to get Bhagat Singh’s sentence delayed, if not commuted, in the interest of peace in the country.

In another interview with the Viceroy on 19-Mar-1931, the Viceroy had mentioned that Gandhi had again talked about Bhagat Singh.

As he [Gandhi] was leaving, he asked [the Viceroy] if he might mention the case of Bhagat Singh, saying that he had seen in the Press the intimation of his execution for March 24th. This was an unfortunate day, as it coincided with the arrival of the new President of the Congress at Karachi and there would be much popular excitement.

I told him I had considered the case with most anxious care, but could find no grounds on which I could justify to my conscience commuting the sentence. As to the date, I had considered the possibility of postponement till after the Congress, but had deliberately rejected it on various grounds :

(i) that postponement of execution, merely on political grounds, when orders had been passed seemed to me improper;
(ii) that postponement was inhuman in that it would suggest to the friends and relatives that I was considering commutation; and
(iii) that Congress would have been able legitimately to complain that they had been tricked by Government.

As can be seen, even though Gandhi talked about Bhagat Singh on repeated occasions, the British were in no mood to listen. It was obviously a mistake since it incited a lot of people against the British empire.

After this, Gandhi wrote another letter to the Viceroy on the day of the execution -

Dear friend,

It seems cruel to inflict this letter on you, but the interest of peace demands a final appeal. Though you were frank enough to tell me that there was little hope of your commuting the sentence of death on Bhagat Singh and two others, you said you would consider my submission of Saturday. Dr. Sapru met me yesterday and said that you were troubled over the matter and taxing your brain as to the proper course to adopt. If there is any room left for reconsideration, I invite you attention to the following.

Popular opinion rightly or wrongly demands commutation. When there is no principle at stake, it is often a duty to respect it.

In the present case the chances are that, if commutation is granted, internal peace is most likely to be promoted. In the event of execution, peace is undoubtedly in danger.

Seeing that I am able to inform you that the revolutionary party has assured me that, in the event of these lives being spared, that party will stay its hands, suspension of sentence pending cessation of revolutionary murders becomes in my opinion a peremptory duty.

Political murders have been condoned before now. It is worth while saving these lives, if thereby many other innocent lives are likely to be saved and maybe even revolutionary crime almost stamped out.

Since you seem to value my influence such as it is in favour of peace, do not please unnecessarily make my position, difficult as it is, almost too difficult for future work.

Execution is an irretrievable act. If you think there is the slightest chance of error of judgment, I would urge you to suspend for further review an act that is beyond recall.

If my presence is necessary, I can come. Though I may not speak, I may hear and write what I want to say.

“Charity never faileth.”

I am,

Your sincere friend,
MK Gandhi

But Bhagat Singh was hanged nevertheless.

Obviously, a lot of violence erupted from this, and people blamed Gandhi for it. This is insane, and what is more upsetting is that people of our generation bring up conspiracy theories that are out of the world. Gandhi wanted to be popular that’s why he let Bhagat Singh die! Wow. This is just beyond me!

Even after Bhagat Singh’s execution, Gandhi talked about him and withheld his position. The questions that you are asking today on Quora were asked at that time as well, and were promptly answered.

But if only we bother to read!

This was Gandhi’s speech 3 days after Bhagat Singh’s execution:

You must know that it is against my creed to punish even a murderer, a thief or a dacoit. There can be therefore no excuse for suspicion that I did not want to save Bhagat Singh.

But I want you also to realise Bhagat Singh’s error. If I had had an opportunity of speaking to Bhagat Singh and his comrades, I should have told them that the way they pursued was wrong and futile. I declare that we cannot win swaraj for our famishing millions, for our deaf and dumb, for our lame and crippled, by the way of the sword.

With the Most High as witness I want to proclaim this truth that the way of violence cannot bring swaraj, it can only lead to disaster. I wish to tell these young men with all the authority with which a father can speak to his children that the way of violence can only lead to perdition. I shall explain to you why. Do you think that all the women and the children who covered themselves with glory during the last campaign would have done so if we had pursued the path of violence?

Would they have been here today? Would our women known as the meekest on earth, would women like Gangabehn, who stood the lathi-blows until her white sari was drenched in blood, have done the unique service they did if we had violence in us? With God’s name on their lips she and her sisters hurled defiance at their oppressors, without anger in their hearts.

And our children—our vanarasena (monkey-army). How could you have had these innocent ones, who renounced their toys, their kites and their crackers, and joined as soldiers of swaraj—how could you have enlisted them in a violent struggle? We were able to enlist as soldiers millions of men, women and children because we were pledged to non-violence.

I beseech the young men to have patience and self control. Anger cannot take us forward. We need not consider the English-men as our enemies. I have used satyagraha against them but have never thought of them as enemies. I want to convert them and the only way is the way of love. Rowdy demonstrations cannot help us.

Could they call Bhagat Singh back to life? They can only retard the advent of swaraj. I agree that the Government has given sufficient cause for provocation, but I want the impatient youth in the name of God, in the name of our dear Motherland, to throw themselves heart and soul in the non-violent struggle. I ask them to trust my unbroken experience of forty years of the practice of non-violence.

But people never stopped asking questions. And just like you are asking on Quora today, why Gandhi could not have made the commutation a condition for the settlement, journalists had asked back then as well.

I pleaded with the Viceroy as best I could. I brought all the persuasion at my command to bear on him. On the day fixed for the final interview with Bhagat Singh’s relations I wrote a personal letter to the Viceroy on the morning of 23rd. I poured my whole soul into it, but to no avail.

I might have done one thing more, you say. I might have made the commutation a term of the settlement. It could not be so made. And to threaten withdrawal would be a breach of faith. The Working Committee had agreed with me in not making commutation a condition precedent to truce. I could therefore only mention it apart from the settlement.

But those who want to say it will keep on saying it.

Gandhi talked about Bhagat Singh on multiple other occasions, such as this article that he published in his magazine:

Brave Bhagat Singh and his two associates have been hanged. Many attempts were made to save their lives and even some hopes were entertained, but all was in vain.

Bhagat Singh did not wish to live. He refused to apologise; declined to file an appeal. If at all he would agree to live, he would do so for the sake of others; if at all he would agree to it, it would be in order that his death might not provoke anyone to indiscriminate murder.

Bhagat Singh was not a devotee of non-violence, but he did not subscribe to the religion of violence; he was prepared to commit murder out of a sense of helplessness. His last letter was as follows: “I have been arrested while waging a war. For me there can be no gallows. Put me into the mouth of a cannon and blow me off.”

These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism. But we should not imitate their act.

I am not prepared to believe that the country has benefited by their action. I can see only the harm that has been done. We could have won swaraj long ago if that line of action had not been pursued and we could have waged a purely nonviolent struggle. There may well by two opinions on this conjecture of mine.

However, no one can deny the fact that if the practice of seeking justice through murders is established amongst us, we shall start murdering one another for what we believe to be justice. In a land of crores of destitutes and crippled persons, this will be a terrifying situation. These poor people are bound to become victims of our atrocities.

It is desirable that everyone should consider the consequences of this. Further, we want a swaraj which is theirs and for them. By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions.

Hence, though we praise the courage of these brave men, we should never countenance their activities.

They say Gandhi did not respect Bhagat Singh, even insulted him. That is not true. It wasn’t in Gandhi’s nature to insult any human being. But, make no mistake, Gandhi was clearly against Bhagat Singh’s methods. How commonly do we speak for the men we oppose?

And what about Bhagat Singh himself? Was he not responsible for his own death? You say that he fought for justice, but then who defines justice? Vigilantes like him? It is strange that we hail him for killing one person, that too a person they did not intend to kill in the first place!

It’s easy to relate to Bhagat Singh because ‘he killed a British guy!’ but, think about it, under no circumstances can we take a high moral ground by doing exactly the same thing that we accuse the other person of doing.

I know that, probably, this entire exercise is futile.

My experience of writing about Gandhi has been that people don’t even want to listen these days. They are hell bent on maligning the image of the father of our nation. They claim that they know better. It is immature, impractical and clearly not justified.

It hurts, but I guess I shouldn’t care. Because Gandhi wouldn’t have cared.

Einstein’s words never seemed more true:

Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth.

Einstein was right about a lot of things, including his predictions on relativity, about space-time, about dark matter, about light being a particle and a wave, and the world celebrates Einstein’s greatness since his predictions are true even 100 years on.

But this is the only prediction by Einstein which hurts because it’s true.

If you liked this, also read: Why is Gandhi so popular when we all know non-violence doesn't work?