It helped that WW-II broke the British. Non Violence needs an audience and a population that i) can feel shame ii) holds some power to do something about it.
Gandhi's protests were causing turmoil and dissent within the UK. Not to forget the fact that the massive Indian population had gone into civil disobedience as well, making it costlier to rule India. Anymore issues, including any harm to Gandhi would have caused massive problems for the British, both in India and at their own homeland. They had to spend to keep everybody safe and the situation normal. That wouldn't have been the outcome of a violent revolution. Summarizing, Gandhi's peaceful protest cannot be described in simple terms. There are a lot of nuances.
Gandhi's protests are a very valuable source of info on both violent and nonviolent protests. It's easy to talk about an armed or violent revolution. But it's not a decision to be taken very lightly. Apparently, both the sides of the American civil war went into it expecting it to somehow end in a few days! You know the carnage that followed. I have no clue why they held that belief. But it supports the fact that people almost always underestimate the cost of a war.
Non-violent protests are more effective at garnering support and mobilizing a huge movement. The human costs are also arguably lesser. I dont know if it's practical all the time. But it should be given a big chance if an opportunity exists.
Non violent resistance can be and has been crushed many times in history.
To win one needs to wield some kind of power or leverage. Non violence does not work if your adversary cannot be shamed by a moral high ground. It will achieve zilch in that case.
I've become increasingly uncomfortable with these sorts of casual throwabouts of extremely complex and unique geopolitical situations though. Gandhi existed in a particular moment and context - take the same man and put him up against a different regime, and you would not get the same outcome.
It's like how people talk up peaceful protest by referencing Martin Luther King. He was a major centralizing figure for civil rights, but he did not exist in a vacuum of context either.
Precisely. Liberation movements have various tools at their disposal. But using the same tool in a different context does not guarantee a similar outcome.
On Gandhi in particular, many do not realize that there were parallel movements inside India that did resort to violence. So the context is not as simple as it may seem.
I mean, Poland managed to get rid of communist rule through a peaceful process(which doesn't mean people weren't arrested, tortured, intimidated and beaten). There was a desire for free and democratic elections and it happened.
