Nonviolent methods often require the possibility of violence as a backdrop to be effective. Otherwise, they might not yield the desired results.
While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios.
In her book Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc...
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10056014-why-civil-resis...
Erica Chenoweth has an appendix listing six hundred movements dating from 1900 which are classified in how violent they were. She found that those that used violence (more) succeeded in achieving their goals 25% time, but those that did not use violence (at all, or much less) succeeded over 40% of the time: you almost double your odds by eschewing violence.
Further, movement that were violent and succeeded were more likely to be oppressive/authoritarian (possibly because the movement leaders internalized the possibility that the same methods would be used against them: the overthrown often don't end up in pleasant places in those situations), while non-violent ones were less likely to be (though no guarantee, with 1970s Iran being the main outlier).
So it appears that the general historical record seems to support Gandhi's philosophy.
You and I have a different interpretation of the parent's comment.
The world has been shaped by power and wars, an undeniable fact that stands without the need for statistical gymnastics.
Yes it has.
It has also been shaped by non-violent methods, e.g., one of the biggest being the fall of Communism, which was done without wars and those without power in: Poland (Solidarity); the Baltic countries (Singing revolution); Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (Baltic Way); Czechoslovakia (Velvet Revolution).
It was done in the Philippines (People Power Revolution), etc.
That said, I believe you are tackling some highly complex topics here. Have you explored well-researched studies, such as “The Strategic Defense Initiative and the End of the Cold War” [1]?
There are a lot of folks in this discussion—many of whom I suspect are Americans and may have a particular (historical) view of how to gain "freedom"—who seem to jump to the 'violent struggle' path. I'm simply pointing out references that support the possibility that is not the only path, and other ones may actually be better, especially in more recent decades (as opposed to what happened hundred-plus years ago).
And we have to watch out for thinking that "fittest" implies "strongest". "Smartest" or "most devious" as in the Cuckoo (https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/birds/facts-ab...) also meet the criteria.
In our modern world, the "smartest" and "devious" are headed to a dead end with below replacement birth rates while the "dumb" rednecks and religious are set to eventually become the majority.
If poor people were going to "outcompete" and wipe out rich people, it would have happened a long time ago.
Also, "religious" have been steadily declining for a while, so that theory doesn't work out. (Of course, the idea that most bad behavior stems from religion, and everyone would be nice to each other without it, is another fallacy.)
https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/labor-shortage-child-teenage-...
You are aware that Darwin as the originator of that phrase specifically pointed to non-violent cooperation as the “fittest“ strategy for survival?
You do know his philosophy worked, right?
Mandela initially followed Gandhi's example of nonviolent resistance to end apartheid but later abandoned it when it became clear it was ineffective.
Just imagine getting independence 5 years earlier by nationwide violent uprisings and non-cooperation moment together. Britain was already fighting on multiple fronts during WW2, it was a plausible path to early independence.
Sure we saved some lives that would've been lost in violent uprisings, but we lost just as many if not more from inaction.
If a movement of violent uprising resulted in Indias independence, the British may have packed their bags but the armies and militias would stay and given the nature of militias, will probably not suddenly turn peaceful. The British was the enemy yesterday, the other <religion, language or another faction> would the enemy today. See any African country.
What the nonviolent movement achieved in India is not just independence. Like you said there were other ways for independence, arguably faster. What the nonviolent movement achieved was long term stability and lack of civil wars /internal conflicts(for the most part).
Violence should be a last resort.
Just because other countries have had more violence doesn't make the incident any less shocking or less applicable to the argument.
By a cyclone, accidents, and japanese blockades, the independent states suffered more because of poor infrastructure, lastly it was only known to Britain come August '43 whereupon 150,000 tonnes of wheat were redirected from Iraq and Aus.
That is why the GP put the "evolved" in quotes. It takes something more than the basest human instincts and the animal sides of us to take this approach. Some may consider it naive. I personally think Gandhi was smart enough to deduce this on his own yet still chose the nonviolent approach regardless. That alone shows he was a greater "man" than most, in my opinion.
The historical record says otherwise:
* https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLKfPdP0E4
* https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/3/21048121/ezra-klein-er...
Or that the soldiers that actually fought for the British in WW2 western theater came back with the ideas of democracy that didn’t really exist in India because of the various puppet governments that people actually interacted with.
This is also true in the USA where you have figures like MLK who had complementary aggressive forces like Malcom X.
It is interesting also because India has turned from Gandhi in a lot of ways. A lot of my own family now think that Gandhi was a useful idiot. Useful at the time, but long past his due and that there needs to be a refocus on a more assertive Hindu identity like Bose.
You probably meant that the animal kingdom follows the law of the strongest, or "might is right".
Time to post that legendary soundbite from Starship Troopers, I guess:
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea—a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue—and thoroughly immoral—doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”