4 ms·

The Indian government is pretty serious about cracking down violently on peaceful protesters: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/07/23/india-excessive-force-used-aga

The Indian government is pretty serious about cracking down violently on peaceful protesters: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/07/23/india-excessive-force-used-against-student-protesters https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/07/23/india-excessive-force-us...

bryanrasmussen 2mo ago
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
- shevy-java 2mo ago
  So far the Modi clique is still in power though.
- paxys 2mo ago
  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 2mo ago
    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 2mo ago
    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.
    - bryanrasmussen 2mo ago
      arguably the American colonies wanted the same thing. What is it with these colonizers that they don't want that!?
      - anon291 2mo ago
        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 2mo ago
        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 2mo ago
        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.
2Gkashmiri 2mo ago
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/anantnag-terror-attack-terrorists-homes-demolished-omar-abdullah-kashmir-10800147/ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/anantnag-terror-atta... BBC says 3000 but yeah. https://www.outlookindia.com/national/2-terrorists-family-homes-demolished-in-kashmir-day-after-anantnag-attack https://www.outlookindia.com/national/2-terrorists-family-ho... So the houses of 2 accused were razed because.....

bryanrasmussen 2mo ago

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

shevy-java 2mo ago
So far the Modi clique is still in power though.
paxys 2mo ago
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 2mo ago
  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 2mo ago
  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.
  - bryanrasmussen 2mo ago
    arguably the American colonies wanted the same thing. What is it with these colonizers that they don't want that!?
    - anon291 2mo ago
      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 2mo ago
        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 2mo ago
        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.

2Gkashmiri 2mo ago

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/anantnag-terror-attack-terrorists-homes-demolished-omar-abdullah-kashmir-10800147/ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/anantnag-terror-atta... BBC says 3000 but yeah. https://www.outlookindia.com/national/2-terrorists-family-homes-demolished-in-kashmir-day-after-anantnag-attack https://www.outlookindia.com/national/2-terrorists-family-ho... So the houses of 2 accused were razed because.....