There were many assassinations and atrocities (including gunning down over 800 unarmed indians) that happened for 50 years leading up to that. Also, after ww2 the British feared that the ton of Indian National Army POWs released from Japan were gearing up to violently resist the British on a large scale. The British didn’t just give up because Ghandi was nice and all the non violent protests. They gave up after years of violence, then a break from the violence, and then the threat of going back to violence against the former POWs and the support they were getting.
Ghandi and his followers were very influential and peaceful, but thats far from the only thing that forced out the brits.
I mean sure, if we include violent reactions to non-violence and place the goalposts just so, then yes, absolutely everything includes violence…
But as far as “any big moves or changes” you mention, Gandhi’s movement for non-violent resistance is the posterchild for doing exactly that without violence. It exposes violent state power as ultimately impotent when faced with massive, collective and coordinated non-violent resistance.
And Gandhi was not “nice” just because he advocated for non-violence… He and his followers used coordinated, active efforts to cripple the mechanisms upholding British rule. The British hated him for it.
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make.
I feel like you didn’t listen to anything I said. Let me summarize it for you. Ghandi was one piece of the puzzle to making the brits leave. The other piece was violence, and without the violence part, it wasn’t going to work.
A good point. However, if violence was all there was, a devastating war would be the end result. The non-violence led the British public to disagree with the military actions.
A destabilized nation cannot war afar.
Apologies for butchering The Art of War, I believe the correct quotation includes “disruption at home” though it’s a very fuzzy memory.
Gandhi and India’s independence from the British through nonviolent resistance comes to mind.
There were many assassinations and atrocities (including gunning down over 800 unarmed indians) that happened for 50 years leading up to that. Also, after ww2 the British feared that the ton of Indian National Army POWs released from Japan were gearing up to violently resist the British on a large scale. The British didn’t just give up because Ghandi was nice and all the non violent protests. They gave up after years of violence, then a break from the violence, and then the threat of going back to violence against the former POWs and the support they were getting.
Ghandi and his followers were very influential and peaceful, but thats far from the only thing that forced out the brits.
I mean sure, if we include violent reactions to non-violence and place the goalposts just so, then yes, absolutely everything includes violence…
But as far as “any big moves or changes” you mention, Gandhi’s movement for non-violent resistance is the posterchild for doing exactly that without violence. It exposes violent state power as ultimately impotent when faced with massive, collective and coordinated non-violent resistance.
And Gandhi was not “nice” just because he advocated for non-violence… He and his followers used coordinated, active efforts to cripple the mechanisms upholding British rule. The British hated him for it.
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make.
I feel like you didn’t listen to anything I said. Let me summarize it for you. Ghandi was one piece of the puzzle to making the brits leave. The other piece was violence, and without the violence part, it wasn’t going to work.
You can’t have a successful MLK without a Malcolm X behind him reminding the oppressors of the other option if they don’t compromise with the former.
Exactly.
A good point. However, if violence was all there was, a devastating war would be the end result. The non-violence led the British public to disagree with the military actions.
A destabilized nation cannot war afar.
Apologies for butchering The Art of War, I believe the correct quotation includes “disruption at home” though it’s a very fuzzy memory.
Conveniently people never talk about Bhagat Singh when they talk about Gandhi.
Gotta love the downvotes.
Q. Has change ever happened without violence
A. Yes look at Gandhi
Lemmy downwotes, no explanation given but obviously doesn’t fit the narrative