The Indian Independence Movement was a series of events and struggles between 1857 to 1947 against British colonial rule in India. The movement against the British Raj employed both violent and nonviolent resistance for an end goal of India operating as its own independent nation, both politically and economically. Within this movement existed a dynamic interplay between oppression and violence.
The British Empire colonization of the Indian subcontinent created extreme exploitation of Indian resources, economics, culture, and politics. The British limited cultural activities in the area, stripping Indians of their heritage and customs. Indians were not granted positions of power within their own government and were limited in their economic success. They were oppressed in their own nation. These oppressive conditions led to the movement for independence, with Indian activists pioneering for freedom from foreign rule. The movement progressed throughout the decades, adapting through different ideologies and tactics as time went on.
In the 1920s, the struggle for independence was characterized by nonviolent resistance. Mahatma Gandhi was the face of this ideology, promoting moral principles and the exposure of the injustices of the British regime. The goal of this was to appeal to the conscience of the oppressor. The Indian National Congress adopted Gandhi’s policy of nonviolence, civil disobedience, and mass mobilizations. The Salt March, taking place in March and April of 1950, garnered international attention about the Independence Movement. This was a march led by Gandhi protesting the British salt tax, which ended in Gandhi's year long imprisonment. This march created international protest about the British government’s occupation of India, and led to increased pressure on Britain to address grievances that Indians had held for years.
Even though Indian independence largely relies on nonviolent protest, there were some leaders who believed that violence was the answer. These people did not believe that nonviolent methods would bring about change, and these radical factions turned to violence. They would create bombs and attempt assassinations to fight against the British. These increased after the Rowlatt Act, which permitted indefinite detention. The idea behind violent protest was that the British rulers would understand how serious and urgent Indian demands were, and thus would increase the speed of the process of independence.
The difference between the nonviolent and violent approaches within the independence movement brought up the many debates and dilemmas that occur when deciding if ends justify means. In the long term, the Indian Independence Movement showcases how powerful of a tool nonviolence can be when fighting against oppression. This movement can serve as an example for other independence movements when looking at the balance of nonviolent activism and the power of limited use of violent tactics when opposing oppressive regimes.
Comentários