3 ms·

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 t

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 3mo ago
So far the Modi clique is still in power though.
paxys 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo ago
    arguably the American colonies wanted the same thing. What is it with these colonizers that they don't want that!?
    - anon291 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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.
      - bryanrasmussen 3mo ago
        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.
        anon291 3mo ago
        Let me be more clear. There is a racial component to it that the American settlers did not have. Gandhi and the original nationalists were English barristers who spoke English, believed in English institutions, were educated in England, and saw themselves as Englishmen and loyal subjects of the King. That is how they've always seen themselves and how the average educated Indian saw themselves. Gandhi's experiences in South Africa made him realize that no amount of education was going to make the English treat him the same simply because his skin made him not blend in. Gandhi is not the only person to see that. Lee yuan kew thought the same. His first reaction was thinking he should prove Indian loyalty to the crown and this would win him points. When that didn't work, he threw away all his tailored English suits and adopted (by show... It was all show) the habits of a Hindu holy man to lead his movements. One can debate the efficacy or whatever but there was no great resistance to English rule. Many old Indians are neutral about it. That generation is dying though and the younger ones have a mythologized past. So yes the degrees in this situation really mattered. The American settlers were seeking to forge a new nation with new institutions. The Indian nationalists just wanted to perpetuate English ones but were unable to do so under English rule.

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 3mo ago

So far the Modi clique is still in power though.

paxys 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo ago
  arguably the American colonies wanted the same thing. What is it with these colonizers that they don't want that!?
  - anon291 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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.
    - bryanrasmussen 3mo ago
      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.
      - anon291 3mo ago
        Let me be more clear. There is a racial component to it that the American settlers did not have. Gandhi and the original nationalists were English barristers who spoke English, believed in English institutions, were educated in England, and saw themselves as Englishmen and loyal subjects of the King. That is how they've always seen themselves and how the average educated Indian saw themselves. Gandhi's experiences in South Africa made him realize that no amount of education was going to make the English treat him the same simply because his skin made him not blend in. Gandhi is not the only person to see that. Lee yuan kew thought the same. His first reaction was thinking he should prove Indian loyalty to the crown and this would win him points. When that didn't work, he threw away all his tailored English suits and adopted (by show... It was all show) the habits of a Hindu holy man to lead his movements. One can debate the efficacy or whatever but there was no great resistance to English rule. Many old Indians are neutral about it. That generation is dying though and the younger ones have a mythologized past. So yes the degrees in this situation really mattered. The American settlers were seeking to forge a new nation with new institutions. The Indian nationalists just wanted to perpetuate English ones but were unable to do so under English rule.