Ramachandra Guha (via) writes that the Indian public opinion has is changing its preference for icons from Gandhi and Nehru to supporters of violent revolution like Savarkar, Bhagat Singh and Bose. I disagree with the notion that any real change in attitude has occurred. It is more likely that those attitudes have come to the fore among English speakers. We are also much less polite to national icons than our parents were, so instead of saying “Gandhi was a great man, though he had some flaws”, it is much more acceptable to say “Gandhi was an idiot”. But there was always a substantial faction that preferred violent revolution to the non-violent movement that took place.
Was that faction right? Would we have gained independence faster if our great-grand parents had staged a violent revolution? I think that the answer to that is yes, but no, there was no chance at all that a violent revolution could have taken place on a scale that would have forced the British to leave.
I don’t want to minimize the suffering and sacrifices that the freedom fighters went through – enduring prison and lathi charges, staying away from their families, not being able to complete their education – all these were no jokes. But I doubt if a sufficient number would have been motivated to take the far greater risks that an insurgent or a terrorist movement would have entailed. Bad as the British rule was, the things they did were not so bad that it generated the level of outrage required, especially among the educated, who would be the leaders of the revolution.
There were some exceptions of course – the most significant one was Jalianwala bagh – I don’t think that it is a coincidence that Punjab gave birth to the most number of violent revolutionaries.
Secondly, a violent movement would probably have alienated the people. Even with the best care the revolutionaries could take to avoid targeting “civilians”, if the movement had reached a large scale, causing difficulties to the uninvolved population would have been unavoidable. Also, the revolutionaries would be mostly fighting other Indians – they would have lost public sympathy quite soon, just as the Punjab terrorists started losing sympathy when the dead bodies of policemen returned to their villages. Again, this has to do with the nature of the British rule. If the British had been really brutal rulers, ordinary Indians would have put up with considerable amount of difficulties. But they weren’t that brutal.
Finally, any violent movement that goes on for long runs the risk of going out of control. If you have a gun, the temptation to turn it on your own people, or to turn it on your comrades for trivial reasons, is huge. Witness the Naxalites, the LTTE or any movement that started with understandable intentions.
So notwithstanding my contempt for the rest of Gandhiji’s views, I must say that keeping the freedom movement as a non-violent mass movement was a masterstroke.
I don’t think it was so.
I don’t think level of brutality is the point.
Instead a violent insurrection would have failed for the same reason rebellion of 1857 failed or for that matter many other prior or after.As an aside the it was Indian soldiers of Army who participated in Jalianwala (Though you may know it)
And why do you think the rebellion of 1857 failed?
No unity
This isn’t a trick question, I hope 🙂
Not a trick question, merely a request for clarification, because as you might know, I do not consider it settled that disunity was the primary cause. (I agree it is the proximate cause, not the primary one.)
Lack of unity is an interesting point for two reasons. First, people are more likely to be united when they feel that there is a crisis or when they are under attack. If the British had carried out widespread brutalities, then it could have forged a sense of unity. Because they were not, we did not unite fully. So in a sense, lack of unity is a repetition of an earlier point.
Looking at it in another way, unity should matter even more in a mass movement than in a violent movement right? A few people with guns can carry out an effective insurgency, even when they do not have sufficiently broad support.
But yes, in a sense, you are correct. The non-violent mass movement was required to *forge* a sense of unity. Through newspapers and speeches and Prabhat feris, people started getting conscious of the fact that they were one nation. If the revolutionaries had resorted to a violent struggle right away, they’d have paid less attention to communicating through words and more through guns.
A very thought provoking post. I have always believed that the non violent movement was instrumental.
Even though a violent movement (maybe) could have got independence, it could not have built a nation afterwards. It would have degenerated into factions immediately after the enemy left, with each fighting the other for a share of the spoils.
Yup you are right. I mean, even without a violent revolution, the movement degenerated into factions and started fighting for spoils, but if they had fought with actual guns, it would have been a pity.
When I lead my revolution that will establish a free market fundamentalist state in India, it will be a short and quick one, and my movement will be disarmed and disbanded immediately afterwards.
Actually your last paragraph perfectly captures what I meant.
I think the group responses are dependant on the inherent group cohesion, this is different from “Feeling united”, which is the “intermediatory step” via which this cohesion gets converted into response.
Now as I see it, India prior to British colonialism had no political unity, which meant that British were able to use one sub-group against another, and which was ultimately the reason that all the violents uprisings failed.
And this would have continued unless political unity was not instilled or forged.
By the way I didn’t know that you thought that disunity was not the primary cause behind failure of insurrections. If you meant this post of yours, I thought it was about failure to thwart foreign invasion.
British rule was bad. But I suppose people wouldn’t have been conscious of such things, so not enough ire would have been generated as you say, for a revolution.
And then as you say, an armed revolution could have well generated a civil war and India would have been another of those African countries. It was in all probability the non-violence and popularity that gave sufficient credibility and popularity to the movement, without which local rulers wouldn’t have been willing to give up their “territory” to join the Indian union.
The British were obviously much less brutal than their predecessors, the mughals and other tyrannic sultans…
Why in the world did the revolutionaries want to reinstall mughal rule with BS Zafar ???
Perhaps a lack of brutality is merely correlative with a lack of violent revolution in our case; Machiavelli would in fact raise his brow at such a causation.
World history gives us examples where a lack of brutality was not enough to prevent a violent revolution (United states of America) and where an excess of brutality was not enough to foment a violent revolution (Latin America; till mid-19th century)
An armed revolution, you hit the nail on the head here, requires greater sacrifices. For it be broadbased, national unity has to be presupposed. If we cannot presuppose national unity, there has to be a small set of powerful peoples who would foment the revolution, and who would install themselves in power after the revolution.
Did we have such a resourceful elite section?
Most likely not; but from this angle, Gandhi’s and the INS’s non violent struggle seems to acquire machiavellian overtones nonetheless.
Lack of British brutality is a myth. I suppose the British took over most of India and kept the rest under its toes by appealing to hearts and minds of Indians- we are repeated told they are fair minded people.
British were plenty brutal especially since 1857 rebellion. Amaresh Mishra estimates 10 million massacred in decade post-1857 – he calls it a holocaust (see Sandeep’s post and Guardian article on subject). But British with control over media and access could cover it up easily. And it’s one reason why fight for independence really gained strength after this period. And has little to do with Indians suddenly becoming more enlightened and becoming more human rights conscious (of course, with British showing the way). Quote of Charles Dicken’s, especially based on his reputation, at the bottom of Guardian article is something.