Non-violence versus Violence for Independence
We are often told that nonviolence is not merely morally superior to violence — it is strategically superior.
Political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan have produced some of the most influential research supporting that proposition. Studying hundreds of political campaigns between 1900 and 2006, they found that nonviolent movements were substantially more likely to achieve their objectives than violent insurgencies. Successful nonviolent campaigns were also more likely to be followed by democratic governments and less likely to descend into civil war.
But is it really true? Lets look at two struggles for independence — India and the US. The first non-violent, the second violent
The Indian independence movement
Mohandas Gandhi returned to India from South Africa in 1915. Influenced by Tolstoy, Thoreau, Jainism, Buddhism and his own experience with civil resistance, he developed nonviolence into a political instrument.
Under Gandhi’s leadership, the Indian National Congress transformed from an organization dominated largely by political elites into a vehicle for mass mobilization. The Non-Cooperation Movement. The Salt March. Civil disobedience. Boycotts. Strikes. The Quit India Movement. Millions of Indians participated.
But there is a problem with turning this into a tale that Gandhi’s nonviolence defeated the British Empire.
Britain did not leave India immediately after the Salt March. It did not leave after the Non-Cooperation Movement. It did not leave after the Quit India Movement.
India became independent in 1947 — after Britain had just fought the most destructive war in its history.
World War II transformed Britain’s position in the world.
Britain emerged victorious, but financially devastated. It was heavily indebted, its economic power had declined dramatically, and maintaining a worldwide empire had become increasingly difficult. Meanwhile, the global political environment had changed. The United States and Soviet Union had emerged as superpowers, and European colonialism was increasingly difficult to defend politically. And another facet that is less know affected the British.
In February 1946, less than a year before independence, sailors of the Royal Indian Navy mutinied. What began in Bombay spread to other naval establishments. Thousands of sailors became involved, while civilians and sections of the police joined the unrest. The rebellion ultimately collapsed, but it created a much more disturbing problem for the British authorities. They could no longer rely on Indian Army to enforce its rule.
The RIN mutiny therefore matters not because it defeated Britain militarily, but because it demonstrated that the loyalty of India’s armed forces could no longer be taken for granted.
Get Ketan Desai’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
And that happened after years of nationalist agitation and immediately after a world war that had exhausted Britain. So the British finally left, 32 years after Gandhi started his non-violent movement
The American Independence Movement
In contrast to India, the American colonies did not spend 32 years politely asking Britain to leave. They rebelled. The American Revolution began in 1775 and ended in 1783. Seven years, four months and roughly two weeks later, the United States had secured independence.
The method was not nonviolent resistance. It was war.
And yet the result was not, as Chenoweth and Stephan’s thesis might lead us to expect from a violent independence struggle, an inevitable descent into dictatorship or permanent civil conflict. The United States constructed constitutional institutions that has survived for centuries.
The American Revolution was successful for reasons that had little to do with violence alone. The colonies already possessed substantial political institutions, local governments and military organizations. France eventually provided crucial assistance against Britain.
Stable Democracies After Independence?
India became independent in 1947 and established a parliamentary democracy. For all its enormous problems, India’s democratic achievement is remarkable.
But then came the Emergency.
In 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi suspended many democratic freedoms. Opposition politicians were imprisoned, press freedoms were restricted and constitutional government was severely compromised. The Emergency lasted nineteen months.
India’s independence was associated with one of history’s greatest nonviolent political movements, yet India experienced a serious democratic breakdown.
America achieved independence through a violent revolution, yet developed remarkably durable constitutional institutions. It has never experienced serious democratic breakdown, even in the middle of a Civil War.
America has certainly had political dynasties — the Kennedys and Bushes are obvious examples. India has had an especially prominent political dynasty surrounding the Nehru-Gandhi family. The interesting issue isn’t whether political families exist. It is whether institutions are strong enough to prevent any family, party or individual from becoming permanently indispensable. In America’s case, yes. In India’s case, no.
So, winning independence is only the first step. What happens afterward? Do political parties accept defeat? Can citizens remove their leaders? Are courts independent? Is the military subordinate to civilian government? Can the press criticize those in power? Can opposition parties organize? Do institutions survive when leaders die?
And perhaps most importantly: Can a country transfer political power without bloodshed? These questions may tell us more about whether a revolution ultimately succeeded than whether the revolutionaries carried rifles or banners.
Based on the above, so far, it seems that America’s revolution was the better blueprint than the Indian non-violence movement
