Skip to main content

Does Gandhi's civil resistance always work?

Gandhi's salt march
Non-violent civil resistance is a wonderful idea whose utility cannot be underestimated.  In theory and practice, the authority which does not lead by consent will naturally lose its foundation.  If the non-violent civil resisters are brutalised, then the authority loses all vestiges of legitimacy since legitimacy stems from honorable action and popular consent.
However, it is not a principle that can work universally.  Non-violent civil resistance worked well in India for a number of reasons.
The first is the population in India outnumbered the British expatriate class and administration by over a thousand to one.  Secondly, the vast geographical expanse between India and England was a further deterrent to keeping India.  Keeping India could only be justified (from an economic perspective) if the risks and losses from such a distance could be mitigated or exceeded by the resources gained from ruling.  Furthermore, the administration was already stretched thinly over the vast expanse of India itself.
Thirdly, while the British viewed themselves as superior, they still did not view the Indians as being on the same level as Africans.  They acknowledged that they lived in a land with an ancient and sophisticated history.  This is important, in that violent action against the non-violent Indians would result in a greater degree of guilt, than if they viewed the Indians as lower than dogs.
The same principles that Gandhi advocated would not have worked for the Jews in Nazi Germany, given that the Jews were already viewed as a population that needed to be purged for the sake of ‘racial hygiene’.  In other words, the Jews were viewed as lower than dogs.  This is why the regime showed no compunction in exterminating the Jewish population. 
The principles would not really have worked for Ireland in times before the 20th century.  The British mainland was only a few tens of miles away at its shortest point to Ireland.  The same logistical trouble with India would not be experienced with Ireland.  Furthermore, the small Irish population in comparison to that of Britain, allowed the British to conduct large population transfers of Irish people to foreign colonies.  The Irish evicted from their homes were easily replaced by British settlers.  Hence the successful Ulster plantation. 
Furthermore, the most successful civil resistance movements are galvanised by the propagation of narrative.  Accounts of the Amritsar massacre in India were circulated widely in India and in Britain.  Martin Luther King’s messages and meetings were broadcasted all around the world. 
When there is not a healthy media presence, a civil resistance movement can be squashed easily.  When an event receives massive publicity, it is harder for an administration to ‘sin quietly’ as the British often did in Kenya.  Civil resistance will eventually descend into violence when peaceful action is deemed to be fruitless.
Another problem that civil resistance faces is when they operate in a country which is subject to frequent acts of violence from other groups.  This can allow a corrupt administration to justify repression against all dissent, labeling them all as terrorists, traitors, agitators, etc.
In summary, non-violent civil resistance can only be sure to work where a very large population is impossible to control, transfer, or be goaded into violence and where the oppression can be observed and judged by all.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whatever happened to slingers?

Andean sling - Img source Wikimedia commons This is a question that crops up in forums and discussions about ancient combat.  Slingers were described by the ancients in very positive terms.  Suddenly they were no longer present.  There are scanty records of sling combat post-antiquity and many explanations have been postulated for their demise. The first is that slings were replaced by bows.   Bows became predominant simply because they were better, more precise, farther reaching etc. The problem with this theory is that while both slings and bows are biodegradable, the oldest discovered bows (Holmegaarde, 6000 BC) predate the oldest sling discovered (2500 BC, Lovelock cave) by thousands of years.   The theory also discounts all written evidence concerning the sling.   Slings were crude but powerful weapons which could project missiles much further than an archer could shoot an arrow.   Long range throwing also depended on the type of ammun...
Post a Comment
Read more

Vikings vs Romans: A hypothetical battle

Roman army vs the Vikings If one were to take the Roman army at its height, it would decimate any early medieval army that would cross its path, according to a claim by Dan Carlin. To test his theory, let’s take a look at a hypothetical battle fought between the Vikings and the Romans.   It is easy to see how Carlin would come to such a conclusion.  At the height of the Roman empire in 117 AD, the army boasted hundreds of thousands of soldiers, all professional, all equipped and supplied well at the expense of the state. No such force existed in western European countries in the Viking age.  Armies were mostly levies with core body of professionals such as the Germanic huskarls or household guard. One could argue that this lack of professionalism was mitigated by a warrior culture.  This is erroneous, however.  Classical Greek and early Roman societies had a warrior culture that prized courage in battle.  Every citizen was also considered a so...
Post a Comment
Read more