Is non-violence a policy of cowards???

[Virendra]

Why Bhagat Singh did such an act of non-violence by throwing a non-lethal bomb and then surrendered. He could very well stay out side and kept on killing few more british officers. Did not he too feel it is more important awakening the dormant population (through publicity of his court trial in this case) rather than doing some violent acts here and there. Just throwing out the British did not mean Independence. It was more important to learn how to govern ourselves in a modern world. It took time but when we started we had a solid political base on which we are aspiring to be a super power instead of fighting never ending civil wars which was very much possible in a multi-cultural country like India.

Yes, this was one of the good things that happened by taking non violence and by rallying behind one man - it was easier for the masses in millions and moreover a sense of direction prevailed. It also curtailed the possiblity of India still being a loose colony of states post independence.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Tronic]

There is nothing cowardice about non-violence.

Gandhi created a worldwide phenomena with his non-violence movements. It is a different case if you label non-violence as doing nothing. Non-violence movement, as in the name, is a movement of civil disobedience. India set an example for the whole world to follow and that is why today, protests and strikes are such a popular method to show off frustration, and bring changes.

Infact, Egypt was the most recent example of a non-violence movement.

 

[SHASH2K2]

There is nothing cowardice about non-violence.

Gandhi created a worldwide phenomena with his non-violence movements. It is a different case if you label non-violence as doing nothing. Non-violence movement, as in the name, is a movement of civil disobedience. India set an example for the whole world to follow and that is why today protests and strikes are such a popular method to show off frustration, and bring changes.

Infact, Egypt was the most recent example of a non-violence movement.

Libya, it is in front for all to see.

I will take the Egyptian example over the Libyan anyday.

Tronic you are able to take Egyption example because military failed to act against civilians . on the other hand in Libya military will be ready to kill thousands if needed to control the country . Non violence was never a Viable option in Libya . Non voilance is a better option but cannot be applied in all scenarios.

 

[niharjhatn]

Tronic you are able to take Egyption example because military failed to act against civilians . on the other hand in Libya military will be ready to kill thousands if needed to control the country . Non violence was never a Viable option in Libya . Non voilance is a better option but cannot be applied in all scenarios.

Completely agree. Pertaining to India, non-violence was preferable as most of the lower-end soldiers employed by the Brits were Indians themselves - and killing droves of such soldiers would not be very great image for an Independant government ostenibly for the non-british Indian people!

 

[Tronic]

Tronic you are able to take Egyption example because military failed to act against civilians . on the other hand in Libya military will be ready to kill thousands if needed to control the country . Non violence was never a Viable option in Libya . Non voilance is a better option but cannot be applied in all scenarios.

SHASH, your resilience will be tested either way. If a populace is not willing to shed blood for a cause, than they probably do not want it as badly, and will fail even if they pick up the gun.

As for Libya, the truth is, the western powers wanted Gaddaffi gone more than the Libyans themselves. If the Libyans wanted they could've easily carried out with their non-violence movement; as Gaddafi could kill them, but not force them to run his factories and industry. Tribal armed uprisings within a country are not a mass civil uprisings.

And as an example of Western nations wanted to kick Gaddafi, notice that GCC countries, all major American allies, are rushing to crush the uprising in Bahrain. Yet, the Bahrain protests are nummed out, and bombs being dropped on Libya! Kill the rogue dictator, but save your own!

 

[SHASH2K2]

SHASH, your resilience will be tested either way. If a populace is not willing to shed blood for a cause, than they probably do not want it as badly, and will fail even if they pick up the gun.

Completely agree with this. Its just the diffrence in approach to reach to the destination. One is longer one but is less painful and other one is shorter but full of thorns in your way. Its all up to the person to decide if he want to save some time or save himself from some pain .

As for Libya, the truth is, the western powers wanted Gaddaffi gone more than the Libyans themselves. If the Libyans wanted they could've easily carried out with their non-violence movement; as Gaddafi could kill them, but not force them to run his factories and industry. Tribal armed uprisings within a country are not a mass civil uprisings.

And as an example of Western nations wanted to kick Gaddafi, notice that GCC countries, all major American allies, are rushing to crush the uprising in Bahrain. Yet, the Bahrain protests are nummed out, and bombs being dropped on Libya! Kill the rogue dictator, but save your own!

I would suggest to look at people of Libyan fighting for freedom from Gaddafi regime. Western powers and their interference is secondary to the main issue . Question is that If they decided to achieve freedom using Non Violence I don't think they would get anything against Gaddafi. Here Non Violence is only option for them .

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

non violence is a good concept but it is not applicable everywhere.while non violence has won in egypt,tunisia it had failed in libya,yemen,bahrain etc.though non violence acheived us freedom from the british it led to the division of the sacred land of india.so we must value non violence within our country but we should not hestate to use violence against our enemies like pakistan,china,maoist,north east rebels etc.

 

[thakur_ritesh]

Completely agree with this. Its just the diffrence in approach to reach to the destination. One is longer one but is less painful and other one is shorter but full of thorns in your way. Its all up to the person to decide if he want to save some time or save himself from some pain .

mate i would imagine the longer the grind the more painful, the more it tests your resilience, the more frightening, the more mentally and physically traumatic.

@topic - no non-violence is not a sign of weakness or cowardice, it never was, it never will be, no matter how bad or brutal the opposition, people die but never the cause!

 

[Nonynon]

For achieving independence I think violence is a must. India might not have used violence in 1947 but lots of other British colonies did and that got Britain to start developing a strategy of letting the colonies slowly go while building up good relations with whatevers left behind. The outcome was lots of long lasting conflicts and lots of countries friendly to Britain (for a time).
For using war against enemies in India's case i would say the war will be too bad to be worth it now that Pakistan are armed with Nuclear power. Better just bit Pakistan by economic means. Maybe more violence against the rebels can help but I think if India will grow economically they will weaken. Look at USA, would some parts of Mexico be claimed by USA will the Mexicans complain or will they rejoice for the chance to get better jobs?

 

[KS]

The recourse to violence and non-violence and the ultimate success of it is mainly a function of the number of people participating. Non-violence methods work only if the pre-dominant majority of the population will take part in the agitation and even then its success is based on a number of other factors.

We may say that the non-violence of Mahatma won us freedom, but I believe if the WWII had not happened and if the Brits had not been left pennyless like they were after the war, our independence would not have come in 1947 (so ,lets for a moment thank Hitler). Coming to more recent events, like Egypt the crucial factor that swung the tide in favour of the protestors was the decision of the Army to remain neutral and in some cases support the protests. If the Army had remained loyal to Mubarak I doubt if the movement would have been sucessfull.

So non-violent methods perse wont do jack unless they are aided by several other factors.

 

[Sabir]

I do not see why non-violence can not be successful in Libya. Yes, Gaddafi is not a guy to yield easily. He will definitely resort to opression, may be kill some in the process. But he can do it till his men are with him. Any nonviolence movement will certainly not aim at changing Gaddafi's heart. Rather it will be test of resilence of his men. How long they could kill their brothers and sisters for a dictator. Path is not easy and that is why non-violence is not a path of cowards. Western nations may kick out Gaddafi, if they want in couple of days. But, Gaddafi will have the cause to propagate among his followers. As they will consider it an western invasion, it will result in a prolonged civil war. But if Gaddafi's men are won over by non-violence means by their own people (through a prolonged movement and some casualities)..........Gaddafi is gone forever.

How, non-violence did work in case of India? If you take the example of earlier movements like non-cooperation movement or Salt-Satyagraha, they got immense response from the civilians-students, labours, peasants,merchants etc. But Indians in government administration and in army remained loyal to the British and helped to supress the movements. But, then came a time, when there were signs of dis-obedience among civil servents and soldiers. British understood they could not rely anymore on them to opress their own people and handed over the power. If you are hammering a stone to break it and it cracks after hundred blows, it does not mean that the 100th blow did the trick. 99 blows you have delivered already ,also have contribution in cracking the stone.

Even today, when we criticise the Maoists, we do not go in depth of their demands. Rather we are critical to the path they have chosen. Because, we consider the path of violence is immoral and shouted to government to take equally harsh measures to eliminate them. Had they taken the path of non-violence, I am sure we would be more interested to understand what they want to say.....

 

[SHASH2K2]

How, non-violence did work in case of India? If you take the example of earlier movements like non-cooperation movement or Salt-Satyagraha, they got immense response from the civilians-students, labours, peasants,merchants etc. But Indians in government administration and in army remained loyal to the British and helped to supress the movements. But, then came a time, when there were signs of dis-obedience among civil servents and soldiers. British understood they could not rely anymore on them to opress their own people and handed over the power. If you are hammering a stone to break it and it cracks after hundred blows, it does not mean that the 100th blow did the trick. 99 blows you have delivered already ,also have contribution in cracking the stone.

We were non violent but still we had to face Jalianwala bag massacre. If anyone needs to be thanked for maximum contribution to Indian independence that person is Hitler. He is the one who started the world war which lead to weakening of British control over its empire across the globe. Its a mere coincidence else who know we would have been serving Gora saab till now. Any guess if even half of nation would have supported Netaji subhas chandra bose and If Indian were up in arms against British during world war. History would have been different and we would have been independent long back.

My logic is simple if we have to go through same amount Pain then why not take the shortcut. At least pain will be lasting for very short time.

 

[Sabir]

We were non violent but still we had to face Jalianwala bag massacre. If anyone needs to be thanked for maximum contribution to Indian independence that person is Hitler. He is the one who started the world war which lead to weakening of British control over its empire across the globe. Its a mere coincidence else who know we would have been serving Gora saab till now. Any guess if even half of nation would have supported Netaji subhas chandra bose and If Indian were up in arms against British during world war. History would have been different and we would have been independent long back.

My logic is simple if we have to go through same amount Pain then why not take the shortcut. At least pain will be lasting for very short time.

World War or not....We would have got independence....may be after20 more years...

If you read about "constitutional development in India" you will see things were moving in that way only- from absolute rule of governor general to participation of Indians in government to responsible government to dominion status to complete Independence....Step by step we learnt how to govern ourselves in a modern world.

 

[roma]

The recourse to violence and non-violence and the ultimate success of it is mainly a function of the number of people participating. Non-violence methods work only if the pre-dominant majority of the population will take part in the agitation and even then its success is based on a number of other factors.

We may say that the non-violence of Mahatma won us freedom, but I believe if the WWII had not happened and if the Brits had not been left pennyless like they were after the war, our independence would not have come in 1947 (so ,lets for a moment thank Hitler). Coming to more recent events, like Egypt the crucial factor that swung the tide in favour of the protestors was the decision of the Army to remain neutral and in some cases support the protests. If the Army had remained loyal to Mubarak I doubt if the movement would have been sucessfull.

So non-violent methods perse wont do jack unless they are aided by several other factors.

nonsensical !!- the brits would have achieved JACKALL if gandhi had gone allout on non co-operation withothout the help of WW2 and how can you even suggest that MAhatma Gandhi benefitted one iota from Hitler ! sob, sob !

 

[niharjhatn]

nonsensical !!- the brits would have achieved JACKALL if gandhi had gone allout on non co-operation withothout the help of WW2 and BALLS TO YOU SIR for even suggesting that MAhatma Gandhi benefitted one iota from Hitler - HOW DARE YOU !! I HOPE THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM WILL WAKE UP TO YOUR EVIL INSINUATION!!

BE AWARE THAT IN MALAYSIA THERE IS A TAMIL MINORITY GIVING ALL INDIAN A VERY BAD NAME !! - YOU PLEASE ADVISE THEM !!

I daresay that he did - I don't think Karthik was 'thanking' Hitler directly, but suggesting that it was World War 2 that hastened India's Independence.

I would disagree, though, and say if India tried hard enough, it could have won independance prior to ww2 but postponed the push for Independence until that conflict was over.

BTW wasn't it netaji (bose) who went and met Hitler?

 

[amoy]

Allow me to say something from an "outsider"'s point of view: "Violence" and "Non-violence" movements are like 2 fronts in support of each other. Let me draw an analogy, perhaps inappropriate - Had there been no "Hamas" or other "radical factions", would Israel have negotiated any peace deals with a Fatah "mild" in contrast?

Chandra Bose (and many others) on one front proved a possibility how India could have thrown British Raj out "violently" even in alliance with its foes (first Nazi Germany, then Japan). That could've one of key factors that Brit. was ready to compromise with the "non-violent" front.

 

[Virendra]

Interesting observation ...

 

[balai_c]

I have been following this argument for a while. There is an interesting mix of opinions. While some of us may feel hurt knowing that our ancestors went as far as collaborating with Hitler, the fact is that we do not get to criticize how we got our freedom. We did not spill blood for getting the freedom of typing whatever we want, that job was done by our previous generation. And yes they did consist of both nonviolent and violent types(armed revolutionaries). From the Gandhian side, we have people like matangini hazra, deshbandhu chittaranjan das , and countless others who silently fought the British using non violent satyagraha, while from armed revolutionaries, well , we have bhagat singh , rajguru, Chandrasekhar azad, mastarda surja sen(Chittagong armory raid), aurobindo ghosh, rashbihari ghosh,preetilata waddedar and of course netaji along with countless others who's name i unfortunately do not know.
With no intended disrespect to Gandhiji , you guys have to think the fatal blow to getting our freedom did not come from non violent satyagraha, but from the exploits of Indian National Army. Even if they INA failed to realize its primary objective(liberating India from British rule), the very fact that army raised, controlled, and led solely by Indians could fight the Brits galvanized the morale of Indians like nothing else. Not only that, for the first time in the history of British Empire, the loyalty of the British Indian Armed Forces was in question and the Brits decided to pack their bags. Sitting today comfortably behind our computers, exercising our entitled freedom of speech, we cannot imagine what effort it took to get the tricolor flag up there.And not just us indians , this is common to all of born after 2nd world war, in today's 3rd world. Yes , the word 3rd world was created after the end of the second world war. People like our freedom fighters existed in every country, whose sacrifices offered us our most precious possession, FREEDOM.

 

[Virendra]

Now Gandhi and Hitler are being discussed here, let me tell you that Mahatma Gandhi had written very favorable letters to Hitler. Addressed to Hitler as "My Friend" these letters continue to surprise the intellectuals who've studied Gandhi and his ideology in depth. The letters are easily available on net.
Whatever may be his beliefs, Gandhi ji was ultimately sitting in national and international politics arena and he sure must've felt the pinch of it.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[SHASH2K2]

World War or not....We would have got independence....may be after20 more years...

If you read about "constitutional development in India" you will see things were moving in that way only- from absolute rule of governor general to participation of Indians in government to responsible government to dominion status to complete Independence....Step by step we learnt how to govern ourselves in a modern world.

Maybe 20 years later or maybe not even in 2011. We cannot assume about what might have happend. We should concentrate on what happened and why . Truth is that If Gandhiji opted for non cooperation during ww2 India would have got freedom due to efforts of Netaji . But Non violent Gandhijee decided to support Violent regime of Queen than supporting army of own national trying to free us.