Question

Do you think the Indian independence movement would have been successful if Gandhi and his followers had used violence against British authorities? Explain why or why not. Was nonviolent protest a good approach? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Gandhi did not claim to be a prophet or even a philosopher. "There is no such thing as Gandhism," he warned, "and I do not want to leave any sect after me." There was only one Gandhian, he said, an imperfect one at that: himself.

The real significance of the Indian freedom movement in Gandhi's eyes was that it was waged nonviolently. He would have had no interest in it if the Indian National Congress had adopted Satyagraha and subscribed to nonviolence. He objected to violence not only because an unarmed people had little chance of success in an armed rebellion, but because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved, and left a trail of hatred and bitterness in which genuine reconciliation was almost impossible

Answer 2

Answer:

No it would not have been successful because Gandhi and everyone else who started to create big movements never used force to convey the bigger message. The king in Britain would send troops to stop the uprising if he saw things were getting out of control. Nonviolence was a good approach because this allowed everyone's voices to be heard and prevent unwanted anger if something were to happen to the people that were trying to protest violently. This also effectively brought change to the world because the king really wanted peace in his territories. He only wanted them to be ruled by him and wanted no unrest. He didn't care what they talked about as long as the people didn't over throw him.