Violent vs. Non-Violent Revolution Violent Revolutions and

Violent vs. Non-Violent Revolution Violent revolutions and non-violent revolutions began to unfold with great regularity after the 1400's, 1500's and 1600's when much to most of the world became colonized by the Dutch, the French, the British and the Spanish. Both the United States and modern-day India became free from the same ruling country, that being Great Britain. However, the differences are quite stark when one gets beyond that similarity.

Even though violent revolutions are often required or at least quicker, the independence of India in the 1940's proved that non-violent revolution can be equally effective, albeit tumultuous in its own right. Comparison Great Britain at one time controlled most of the world, it seemed, along with Spain, France and a few other countries. Indeed, the land now owned by the United States was, at one time or another, controlled by the British, the French, the Spaniards and their descendants and variants.

India also passed from country to country over its existence. The dutch controlled the area for more than two centruies and then switched to the Danes for half a century or so. France had a claim of its own for the better part of two centuries.

However, the country that ruled part or all of India the most really was the British as they were involved in the area for nearly half a millennia, running from 1612 to 1947 when India eventually broke off on its own in large part from the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi and other likeminded people. The United States engaged in a violent yet strongly willed revolution in the early 1770's when it wrested control of the colonies away from Great Britain.

Indians engaged in non-violent protests and simply refused to aid or abet the controlling British authority. There was some violent actions and activities here and there but the end-result was eventually the partitioning of India into what is now India and what is now Pakistan. The partitioning was even conceded as necessary by Mahatma Gandhi at one point because he felt that a separate Indian and Muslim state were needed to prevet strife.

This happened, for the most part, but actions such as the assassination of Gandhi by one of his own people proved that not everyone on "his side" was aligned with the precepts and facets of non-violent resistance and protest. The American and Indian revolutions were similar in that they were fighting back against the British in reaction to not being allowed to participate in their own government and their country's own destiny.

Rather than being free and independent nations, both India/Pakistan and the United States were controlled locally and afar through brutal regulation and punitive behaviors as well as lack of freedom and high taxation. However, the differences (as noted in the introduction) are much more numerous beyond that. Indians remained mostly peaceful but the Revolution was exceedingly violent.

The latter was to the extent that the British that would line up to fire their weapons would be usurped by Americans who resorted to guerilla warfare and sniping off of generals and other key figures to confuse the British and put them in disarray. By contrast, the Indians just refused to cooperate and aid the British. Also very different is that the Indian backlash actually started violent and then became peaceful.

The violence started in 1857 but the consequences were dire in terms of lives lost even if the British did do some reforms including not taking away land like they did before. About a generation later, the nascent organized movements that started just after the rebellion started to make progress even if the progress was fairly slow. A fever pitch occurred in the late 1800's and very early 1900's and this eventually led to the partitioning of Bengal in 1905.

The All India Muslim League was formed around the same time and that is around the time the First World War happened. Native Indians actually participated in the war effort and tried to help Britain during that time as a show of goodwill. Britain responded by doing some reforms but it was not enough and that is when Gandhi showed up. The non-cooperation movement started in the 1920's and the Salt March with civil disobedience, the Quit India movement and so on eventually led to the British giving up.

The American Revolution was much.