Nonviolent or Violent Rebellion?

Gandhi is famous for holding fast to his belief that nonviolence is "a far more powerful weapon than guns or bombs." (In class Handout, 28). Even when the British in Colonial India physically harmed Indians, such as at the "Massacre at Amritsar", Gandhi never once condoned a violent reaction.

One of Gandhi's reasons for supporting nonviolence is obvious: violence is immoral and no good can result from it. This notion can be generally accepted. However, violence is often employed by rebels because it causes rapid change. This can be seen during the Indian Nationalist Movement, when after being released from jail, Gandhi was urged to start a new satyagraha campaign. Gandhi reluctantly agreed on the condition that the campaign would be explicitly nonviolent, however, some of his followers, who were impatient for change, burned a police station and killed 22 policemen in the process. Gandhi immediately ended this campaign after this incident.

Gandhi ignored the fact that violence quickens the pace of change. Instead, Gandhi once wrote that "Swaraj by non-violence must be a progressively peaceful revolution such that the transference of power...will be as natural as the dropping of a fully ripe fruit from a well-nurtured tree. I say again that such a thing may be quite impossible of attainment. But I know that nothing less is the implication of non-violence". (Handout, 42). The idea that Gandhi is trying to convey is that non violence is a much more natural transition of power than violence. This is based off of Gandhi's fundamental belief that truth will emerge inevitably. Thus, "truth" or in this case, freedom of the Indians from British captivity, will happen inevitably because no group can ever keep another group oppressed forever. Therefore, Gandhi sees no use in 'pressing the matter', especially if violence is the sacrifice that one must make in order to quicken the pace of change. Instead, Gandhi trusts that time will do its work and will eventually unravel all unjust things.

Is Gandhi correct in his statement that nonviolence will ultimately lead to justice? I say yes, because throughout history, no group has been prejudiced for eternity. Whether it be race, religion, gender etc., rights and freedoms have always emerged, to some extent, for the oppressed. Then, if the idea of inevitable truth holds true, there is no use for violence in fighting for independence. Violence causes increased emotion and bloodshed, neither of which are ultimately good. Instead, people should just remain calm and patient, and especially careful in practicing nonviolence. In the end, the oppressed will find justice.