One of the formative narratives of Indian independence is that peaceful protest works in getting rid of bad governments.

on edit: changed myths to narratives to avoid confusion

▲

paxys 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s funny because the Indian independence movement was a failure. Indians protested non-violently and sometimes violently for over a hundred years, and British control (first through the East India company and then directly by the crown) kept increasing with every passing year, eventually encompassing the entire subcontinent.

India eventually gained independence because colonialism in general was not politically and economically viable in a post WW2 world, and so Britain just got up and left (as they did from dozens of other colonies in the post war years).

Had the independence movement not existed and Gandhi himself not existed the end result would have been exactly the same.

▲

bryanrasmussen 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the political non-viability was at least partly due to the combination of non-violence and the potential threat of violence, as I am of the opinion that the first never works without a threat of the second.

▲

anon291 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People greatly misunderstand the Indian independence movement. The early Indian activists merely wanted India to have a devolved legislature like present-day Scotland and Wales, or like Canada and Australia used to have. It was relatively late that anyone really wanted independence. I think many of them still wanted to be a constituent state of the UK.

People always forget that Gandhi's first actions as a 'nationalist' were attempting to raise an army to fight on behalf of Britain. The idea that the Indian nationalists wanted to be a new nation from the get go is a modern day invention.

▲

paxys 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Call it freedom or independence or autonomy or dominion or whatever else you want, it doesn’t change the underlying point. Indians wanted it, and Britain denied it. In fact they denied it quite emphatically and violently. Eventually the outcome was decided by geopolitical realities, not a bunch of people shouting slogans.

	▲	anon291 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Britain did not deny it and was actively working towards allowing self-rule in India the entire time. You seem to be saying that Britain denied India independence while at the same time saying Britain allowed an independent India. The two views are fundamentally at odds.

▲

bryanrasmussen 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

arguably the American colonies wanted the same thing. What is it with these colonizers that they don't want that!?

▲

anon291 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It is simply not true to the same degree. The American colonies believed the King of England had violated their rights as Englishmen, Indian independence activists simply wanted Indians to have the same rights as other citizens of the UK and subjects of the British crown. The Indian independence movement started as a mirror of the Irish self-rule movement.

▲

somenameforme 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The 'Americans' felt that they were being treated as second class citizens with no meaningful political representation on their behalf. Hence rallying cries like 'no taxation without representation' which originated, at least in modern times, in Ireland.

	▲	anon291 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The difference is that American colonials could return to England and have representation, while Indians could not, so no there is a distinct difference in what was being asked for.

▲

bryanrasmussen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

hardly anything is ever true to the same degree, and so saying something is simply not true to the same degree seems oxymoronic, in that if it is not true to the same degree implies that it is somewhat true to a lesser degree.

▲

shevy-java 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So far the Modi clique is still in power though.