Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I get that.
But until these leaders renounced violence and took on a more peaceful approach they weren't nearly as effective.
|
I don't think this is the case.
It is partially true, but not in the way you're suggesting I don't think.
Gandhi's acceptance of violence as necessary is the de facto instance where indian independence changed.
His non-violent approach was useful for creating a movement that could be openly accepted. I.e. if you were indian, you could support Gandhi openly because he wasn't actively subverting the Raj, but if he was actively supporting violent overthrow, you'd be sentencing yourself to the same fate he would have met, execution or imprisonment.
When they advocated for autonomous, nation wide violent resistance, THAT is when substantial change took place in India. It's the historical tipping point.
MLK is a different story because there is a much larger established history of violent rebellion prior to him coming onto the scene.