Violence; does it work?

[billy]

Over 80,000 Indians were jailed as a result of the Salt Satyagraha aka the salt march, here's a snippet;

Over 80,000 Indians were jailed as a result of the Salt Satyagraha.[5] However, it failed to result in major concessions from the British.[6]

The Salt Satyagraha campaign was based upon Gandhi's principles of nonviolent protest called satyagraha, which he loosely translated as "truth-force."[7] Literally, it is formed from the Sanskrit words satya, "truth", and agraha, "asking for." In early 1930 the Indian National Congress chose satyagraha as their main tactic for winning Indian independence from British rule and appointed Gandhi to organize the campaign. Gandhi chose the 1882 British Salt Act as the first target of satyagraha. The Salt March to Dandi, and the beating by British police of hundreds of non violent protesters in Dharasana, which received worldwide news coverage, demonstrated the effective use of civil disobedience as a technique for fighting social and political injustice.

being non violent does not mean you don't create an atmosphere where violence abounds. gandhi didn't give a toss about his followers. the pain they went through; not because he was a great man but because they were poor. thousands of his followers died. needlessly in many cases.

the empire was already crumbling, if he'd have wait ten years, 80, 000 wouldn't have been beaten and jailed, hundreds wouldn't have been killed....and don't think for one second that many of the 80,000 didn't fight back when they were beaten. this was just one instance, there were more. his followers were mainly peasants and farmers without land. many committed acts of violence such as robbery etc just in order to survive, it was easier to for them to follow gandhi than eke out a living on the land.