Violence vs Oppression: Indian Independent Movement
Great Britain's occupation of India created distress in a country whose people collectively strived to invite as much peace into their lives and outlook as possible. Although India did have a capable military, they were discouraged from using violence especially with highly respected Hindu leaders like Gandhi insisting that a peaceful rebellion was the best option to resist their oppression. Yet Gandhi's nonviolence method quickly proved to be futile as the British chose to be violent in response to peaceful marches and demonstrations to oppressive matters such as the Salt Tax. Even though Gandhi's efforts didn't push the British out of India, they did inspire many more freedom fighters and spark a movement of mobilizing mass participation, widespread civil disobedience, profound cultural resonance, and attracted worldwide attention. From this point around 1931, the seeds were sown. With tempers rising, India began to counter the British with military strategy and strength. Assassinations and bombings as well as mutiny by Indians planted fear in the British colonizers. As unfair murder of innocent Indians raged on, many freedom fighters like Subhas Bose, plotted their country's path to freedom. After WWI, Indian soldiers who served in Imperial units began to rebel from within and threaten British officers. Anti-colonialist beliefs and groups only grew with passion during the second world war. By the end of it, the Indian National Army had become an adversary worthy enough of concern that Britain withdrew from the subcontinent after 89 destructive years of occupation.
I feel as though India thoroughly tried many different strategies, peaceful and violent, to confront their British oppressors. Although the Hindu and Muslim roots of India's culture are inherently non-violent, the defense of immoral attacks are worthy of a matched defensive effort (in my opinion). As mentioned by Professor Ganguly, Gandhi expressed his belief that the Jewish people should have met the Nazi party's violence with only peace and surrender because the Nazis would eventually learn or come to their own demise. As a Jewish person, this extreme approach to non-violence is deeply frustrating to even imagine. Most humans are ingrained with the belief that you must fight to protect what you believe is right. So to not oppose antisemitism and mass genocide feels like accepting them. And without an equally aggressive response to the Nazis, the murderous fascist party would have extinguished the earth of countless more minority groups unable to defend themselves without military intervention. I believe that Gandhi's nonviolence approach to conflict is beautiful in theory and should always be considered as a first approach by the oppressed party. But if the oppressors are unwilling to change or discuss their harmful ways, then sometimes an eye must be taken for an eye to restore order where evil ran rampant for too long.
Comments