Although he is always on the Indian cards at times when Indians want their freedom from British rule, Mahatma Gandhi, the "Father of the Nation" in India, has his share of critics. There were many militant freedom fighters and revolutionaries who were opposed to his ways and choices although Gandhi was the symbol of the Indian independence movement. Over the years, many of the actions and words of Gandhi drove away those who felt that India needed a more extreme approach to throw off British shackles. These acts are a proof of why most Indians, particularly the revolutionaries, hated Gandhi.
The third incident that forged deepline divisions among the freedom fighters was when Gandhi decided to withdraw the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922. It was the movement that had stood still all the administration that had been under the rule of the British government. But after the violent Chauri Chaura incident, in which protestors killed 22 policemen, Gandhi suddenly called off the movement. It was a catastrophic blunder for revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, who would have believed this was the moment to move forward, not retreat. Gandhi's call to halt the movement was, to them, a betrayal of an opportunity at the peak of British rule to challenge it.
The other rallying point was 1931. Bhagat Singh, with Sukhdev and Rajguru, had been given the death penalty due to his revolutionary activities against the British. In the same year, everybody, from the masses to the freedom fighters, held hopes through Gandhi in his negotiations with the British that he perhaps could save Bhagat Singh from the gallows, as Bhagat Singh didn't make a decisive move to rescue him. In his execution, these revolutionaries, including the new symbol of the rebellious youth Bhagat Singh, proved to be a dark stain. More people felt that Gandhi had not been able to protect the revolutionaries who were prepared to sacrifice everything and risk their lives for the country's freedom.
Gandhi, at the same time, was inspiring people with his adherence to non-violence, in spite of infuriating them as well. Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh, along with many others, emphasized that a more militant approach would take the revolution further in dismantling the British rule. As such, Gandhi's stand against violence, even before an oppressively colonial regime, made the difference between him and the revolutionary leaders. For Bose and his supporters, Gandhi was binding their struggle for independence rather than enabling them by adhering strictly to not indulging any form of violence.
This contest finally came to head when Subhas Chandra Bose defeated Gandhi's favored candidate, Pattabhi Sitaramayya, for the Indian National Congress presidency in 1939. However, even with mass popularity on his side, Bose could not be allowed leadership by Gandhi and his cohorts; he was compelled to resign. Bose envisioned India's freedom in a way that any means to achieve it were possible; one such means was forming alliances with Axis powers during World War II, which was exactly the opposite of Gandhi's policy. This ideological divide only further divided the independence movement and heightened the feeling against Gandhi.
Another controversy he fell into was the Khilafat Movement between 1919 and 1924. Here, Gandhi faced great opposition within Hindu nationalism and secular freedom fighters who accused him of adding politics to religion by joining forces with Muslim leaders on this issue of the Caliphate of Turkey-an affair entirely unrelated to Indian independence.
People found at the Second Round Table Conference, 1931, that willingness by Gandhi to accept Dominion status for India instead of complete independence fuelled further anger among many freedom fighters. The latter wanted absolute freedom from the British, and this would mean India under the influence of Britain. For those who didn't like this concession, Gandhi's approach was too weak and too compromising.
The same year, Gandhi signed the Gandhi-Irwin Pact with which he agreed to call off the Civil Disobedience Movement in exchange for releases of political prisoners and participation of the latter at the Round Table Conference. Many at the Indian National Congress and revolutionaries felt shortchanged by this agreement: what were all those sacrifices-the lost lives and inmates for? The pact did not bring India closer to independence.
Another point of controversy in Gandhi is the way he had handled Subhas Chandra Bose's Indian National Army (INA) during World War II. Bose had raised the INA, with the support of Japan, to fight British domination, but never could Gandhi openly support this armed struggle. To Bose's followers and to many Indians, the INA represented a real and concrete effort to overthrow British rule; Gandhi's refusal to back it was seen as further evidence of his unwillingness to embrace revolutionary methods.
Even Gandhi's Quit India Movement launched in 1942 could not be unscathed from criticism. Though planned as a non-violent movement, it soon drifted into the chaos of general violence. Many felt that Gandhi did not take proper guidance, and during the movement, his detention created a gap in leadership. The disorganization in the movement and the inability to provide an instantaneous result frustrated many freedom fighters who were of the opinion that if there was more planning and better leadership, the movement could have been done far better.
Perhaps the most profound source of bitter resentment toward Gandhi was yet to come in 1947, when he acquiesced in the partition of India. In principle, Gandhi was opposed to the partition of India and Pakistan, but he went along because the alternative was continued communal violence. Many Hindu nationalists blamed him for giving in to Muslim leaders and their demand for a separate state, accusing him of "betrayal". The partition that led to extreme violence and evictions became the most tragic events in Indian history; Gandhi's role in it is still under debating point.
Conclusion: Gandhi was glorified for his role in India's independence but most of the contemporaries were alienated from his methods and decisions. However, his stance towards non-violence, his deal-making with the British, and his hesitation to give support to a revolutionary Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose led to extreme elements in the independence movement. For those who sincerely believed that the right way to gain freedom was through more aggressive means, his ideologies were compromising tactics, and this is why many of them started resenting him for both during and after the independence movement.