3 ms·

"While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios." You do know his philosophy worked, right?

quietbritishjim 2y ago
It did not give him the united India he wanted, and an independent India was on the cards for other reasons, so I don't think you can conclude that. Mandela initially followed Gandhi's example of nonviolent resistance to end apartheid but later abandoned it when it became clear it was ineffective.
wetpaws 2y ago
[dead]
0x1ceb00da 2y ago
Yes it did, but it was a mistake to think hitler could be talker out of what he was doing. Nazi germany was to british rule what the american psycho would be to a thief. Britishers freed india when the income stopped justifying the expenses. That's what gandhi's plan was all along (non cooperation movement). This kind of reasoning doesn't work on people who are following an ideology.
7bit 2y ago
You know it worked only due to vastly different circumstances, right?
7bit 2y ago
Hitler would have killed Ghandi on the spot, and continued his breakfast.
ConfiYeti 2y ago
We gained independence when it was inconvenient for the British to continue their rule over India. While his work can not be understated, you also can't deny that it took a very long time. During that long period: Indians fought under British banners and died, and Indians were systematically starved to feed frontlines of war we had nothing to do with. Just imagine getting independence 5 years earlier by nationwide violent uprisings and non-cooperation moment together. Britain was already fighting on multiple fronts during WW2, it was a plausible path to early independence. Sure we saved some lives that would've been lost in violent uprisings, but we lost just as many if not more from inaction.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  The kind of organization that operates like the ANC (violent cells oriented around loyalty and survival) governs like the ANC (networks of cronies that are loyal to the country but in every other way ransack it). I think India is a lot better off for having gone into the hands of someone like Nehru, which would not have been possible if the first person to hold the reigns of power had also been the head of a nationalist terrorist organization.
- odux 2y ago
  Independence itself is a point in time thing. When there is a movement that results in something the movement doesn’t suddenly disappear after the success. The movement continues to influence power and how things are shaped. If a movement of violent uprising resulted in Indias independence, the British may have packed their bags but the armies and militias would stay and given the nature of militias, will probably not suddenly turn peaceful. The British was the enemy yesterday, the other <religion, language or another faction> would the enemy today. See any African country. What the nonviolent movement achieved in India is not just independence. Like you said there were other ways for independence, arguably faster. What the nonviolent movement achieved was long term stability and lack of civil wars /internal conflicts(for the most part).
  - nradov 2y ago
    A movement of violent uprising resulted in the USA's independence. The standing army and state militias stayed. It was mostly peaceful, until the slave-owning faction tried to revolt. We've only had that one real civil war, so overall the violent movement seems to have worked out pretty well for us.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      IDK. I prefer peaceful transitions of power over escapades like January 6. Violence should be a last resort.
      - 2y ago

quietbritishjim 2y ago

It did not give him the united India he wanted, and an independent India was on the cards for other reasons, so I don't think you can conclude that. Mandela initially followed Gandhi's example of nonviolent resistance to end apartheid but later abandoned it when it became clear it was ineffective.

wetpaws 2y ago

[dead]

0x1ceb00da 2y ago

Yes it did, but it was a mistake to think hitler could be talker out of what he was doing. Nazi germany was to british rule what the american psycho would be to a thief. Britishers freed india when the income stopped justifying the expenses. That's what gandhi's plan was all along (non cooperation movement). This kind of reasoning doesn't work on people who are following an ideology.

7bit 2y ago

You know it worked only due to vastly different circumstances, right?

7bit 2y ago

Hitler would have killed Ghandi on the spot, and continued his breakfast.

ConfiYeti 2y ago

We gained independence when it was inconvenient for the British to continue their rule over India. While his work can not be understated, you also can't deny that it took a very long time. During that long period: Indians fought under British banners and died, and Indians were systematically starved to feed frontlines of war we had nothing to do with. Just imagine getting independence 5 years earlier by nationwide violent uprisings and non-cooperation moment together. Britain was already fighting on multiple fronts during WW2, it was a plausible path to early independence. Sure we saved some lives that would've been lost in violent uprisings, but we lost just as many if not more from inaction.

whatshisface 2y ago
The kind of organization that operates like the ANC (violent cells oriented around loyalty and survival) governs like the ANC (networks of cronies that are loyal to the country but in every other way ransack it). I think India is a lot better off for having gone into the hands of someone like Nehru, which would not have been possible if the first person to hold the reigns of power had also been the head of a nationalist terrorist organization.
odux 2y ago
Independence itself is a point in time thing. When there is a movement that results in something the movement doesn’t suddenly disappear after the success. The movement continues to influence power and how things are shaped. If a movement of violent uprising resulted in Indias independence, the British may have packed their bags but the armies and militias would stay and given the nature of militias, will probably not suddenly turn peaceful. The British was the enemy yesterday, the other <religion, language or another faction> would the enemy today. See any African country. What the nonviolent movement achieved in India is not just independence. Like you said there were other ways for independence, arguably faster. What the nonviolent movement achieved was long term stability and lack of civil wars /internal conflicts(for the most part).
- nradov 2y ago
  A movement of violent uprising resulted in the USA's independence. The standing army and state militias stayed. It was mostly peaceful, until the slave-owning faction tried to revolt. We've only had that one real civil war, so overall the violent movement seems to have worked out pretty well for us.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    IDK. I prefer peaceful transitions of power over escapades like January 6. Violence should be a last resort.
    - 2y ago