[andybak]

I'd like to get confirmation of this by someone who knows more Indian history than I do but I've been told more than once that the popular narrative than independence was secured almost entirely by Gandhian non-violence is woefully oversold.

There are many statues to armed freedom fighters around India and Indian Railways famously have special counters provided as a privilege for "Senior Citizens, Disabled, MLAs and Freedom Fighters".

Subhash Chandra Bose who led the Indian National Army against the British and with Japanese support is still regarded as a hero by many. I'm sure someone with better knowledge than I can provide other examples of how the armed struggle was key and is still regarded as such within India.

Similarly there is evidence from Northern Ireland that it was the increasing violence - especially when it spread to the mainland - that led the British to negotiate with the Republicans.

I aspire to pacifism by the way. I'm just not sure if every historical example can bend to support it.

[Zimahl]

I can't talk to the complexities of India's fight for freedom. I will say that I've worked with Indians who hold Bose in higher regard than Ghandi due to Ghandi pushing for the separation of Hindu and Muslim countries and the conflicts and deaths that caused, but that's second hand information to me. Interesting nonetheless.

India's resistance to British imperialism is similar to the US response to British imperialism. Sometimes armed resistance is necessary but when done within the official context of an army, with rules of engagement and hierarchy, it can be legitimized.

However, when fringe militant resistance that is the definition of terrorism is used, it tends to have the opposite affect.

The Black Panthers weren't doing themselves any favors within the establishment by being so militant. LBJ wouldn't have spent 5 minutes bowing to their demands but had no choice politically to negotiate with a preacher leading a peaceful, rights-driven resistance.

What you have to understand is that politically the Democrats had full control of the southern states up until the Civil Rights Act. After LBJ (a Texas, southern Democrat) got the CRA passed the entirety of the southern Democrats became Republicans - where those same states are to this day. It was done at a huge cost to LBJ and the Democrats, but it was the right choice.

[king_jester]

> The Black Panthers weren't doing themselves any favors within the establishment by being so militant. LBJ wouldn't have spent 5 minutes bowing to their demands but had no choice politically to negotiate with a preacher leading a peaceful, rights-driven resistance.

When you and your communities existence is under direct violent threat, you are under no obligation to be nice and to wait for the persons harming you to play nice. Even after the CRA, racism and violence, both individual and systemic, persists and is a problem of US society.