The only reason non-violence worked with Ghandi was the fact that he was dealing with a somewhat civilized people in the British. Also the fact they didn;t have much for weapons.
Try nonviolence with barbarians and you end up literally as supper.
> ...he was dealing with a somewhat civilized people in the British.
Not even “somewhat civilized”:
How Churchill ‘starved’ India
Thursday, 28 October 2010
It is 1943, the peak of the Second World War. The place is London. The British War Cabinet is holding meetings on a famine sweeping its troubled colony, India. Millions of natives mainly in eastern Bengal, are starving. Leopold Amery, secretary of state for India, and Field Marshal Sir Archibald Wavell, soon to be appointed the new viceroy of India, are deliberating how to ship more food to the colony. But the irascible Prime Minister Winston Churchill is coming in their way.
“Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country,” writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. “Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country,” he writes.
Some three million Indians died in the famine of 1943. The majority of the deaths were in Bengal. In a shocking new book, Churchill’s Secret War, journalist Madhusree Mukherjee blames Mr Churchill’s policies for being largely responsible for one of the worst famines in India’s history. It is a gripping and scholarly investigation into what must count as one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the Empire.
The article continues here:
Mostly it is the the “civilized” people one needs to watch out for. Most of the worlds evils are committed not by primitive savages but by people promoting “civilization”.
The supreme irony that seems to have escaped you is the fact that the 2nd Amendment was designed to take care of the very excesses in cruelty by the British, in America. The two are intertwined. The British were burning houses, churches and towns during the time, here. As for India, look up Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre or how British policies led to famines in India which killed millions. Post-Independent India saw a drastic, dramatic reduction in famine.
I am not so sure non-violence actually “worked” with the British. I don’t think the Brits woke up one fine day and had sympathy for Indians they decided to pack up and leave. The British economy was devastated after the war. They didn’t have the financial resources to hold on to India. India also had 3 million strong highly trained army who just returned from WW2 and they were only waiting to rise in revolt. Gandhi was actually doing the Brits a favor by saving their @sses from slaughter via non-violence. If the British has killed him the dissenting Indian army would have unleashed hell on the Brits.
Gandhi’s methods weren’t just non-violent. He was a sly fox.
His target was not the British military, but British economy. He instituted civil disobedience and non payment of taxes. He correctly identified the real source of British power.
He maybe “non-violent” but he exhorted Indians to volunteer in the British army to fight the Nazis is Europe and North Africa. The result was 3 million Indians became highly trained the the art of modern combat. When they returned home, the political power base had shifted. Gandhi held the ultimate influence over the 3 million Indian soldiers even through they took orders from their British officers.
Non violence is not a passive deal. When used effectively its the most effective art of war.