A perspective on nonviolence

I conclude the critique of Dr Bandy Lee’s essay on nonviolence in this final article. In previous two articles I gave context to some of the historical developments which Dr Lee cites as a success story of nonviolence and put them into proper light (1, 2).

But now getting to heart of the matter. Is nonviolence the answer to all the problems of our social and political arena? There is no simple answer to this question. When talking about nonviolence and peaceful protests as a way to solve things, we generally assume that channels of Civil dialogue are open. What happens when all channels of Civil dialogue and political participation are shut down? How effective is non-violence and ahimsa in such state?

Why Democracy is such an effective way of governance? It’s because of its perceptional legitimacy, that it at least in theory allows people to participate in political process. Democracy has these pressure release valves which allows for social tensions to dissipate. If you are angry, you can go to a public protest, you can rant on social media, you can write a newspaper editorial criticizing the government. All that is in addition to periodic elections where you cast your votes in favor or against the politicians or you can stand as a candidate yourself. Now in practice, all these things may still not bring a substantive change in society but at least these things are there. Meaning - a channel of Civil dialogue is open. Whether it’s effective or not is another matter.

Even British Colonial rulers built certain pressure release valves in colonies. They allowed certain leaders to do some political activity. In India, it was Britishers who actually created Indian national congress, a civil platform inviting local politicians - this became first political party in Indian politics. Britishers also allowed peaceful protests although under limitations and provided a modest autonomy for governance. Gandhi would do political protests routinely. When he made things difficult for Colonial powers, they threw him in jail. But they released him later and Gandhi would go back to protesting. Gandhi was an annoyance for Britishers. Gandhi was in and out of jail many times and in all civility British never intended to kill Gandhi.

Channels of Civil dialogue are open in America and I hope they remain so. Brilliance of Martin Luther King was not just his civil disobedience and nonviolence strategy but his instinct in recognizing that channels of Civil dialogue are wide open and thus they are the most suitable modes to achieve victory. Difficult but doable with some determination. When there are available channels of Civil dialogue, nonviolent movements have good chances of success. In an open society, nonviolent movements almost always succeed and success is only a matter of time. MLK knew this fact very well. The racial problems in American society could be resolved because America was an open and civilized society, ready for a dialogue. The democratic US government was ready to hear grievances of Black community and civil discussion was possible.

But what happens when all channels of Civil dialogue are shut down. Let’s look at closed society like Russia today. You do public protest against Putin’s war you get thrown into penal colony. You make social media posts against Putin, you go to jail. Then there are these show trials which have nothing to do with any jurisprudence or basic sense of justice. Throwing people in Penal colonies is one way to deal with government critics and protesters. Otherwise you may also accidentally fall from your balcony or open window. There’s a saying in Russia - if you’re a government critic, you should stay on a lower floor apartment.

Putin Critics sent to prison (1, 2, 3)

Recall that Colonial Britishers never intended to kill Gandhi no matter how much annoyance he caused. Gandhi was given civilized treatment by Colonial rulers, he never experienced any torture and enjoyed certain privileges. But look at fate of Alexei Navalny in hellish Russian penal colony. First thrown into prison by a Show trial then tortured and murdered inside. Countless such Russian political prisoners meet the same fate. So how effective is Civil disobedience in society like Russia? I leave this as an open question for readers and Dr Lee.

Let’s look at Saudi Arabia and plight of women there. Women are reduced to personal property of men. Criticism of government or even dissent against their husbands will land women in Prison or ‘care home’. Still, the situation of women in Saudi Arabia is better than Afghanistan - a society which is a literal hell for women. The status of women is reduced to a sex slave in Afghan society. In Saudi Arabia, women may get floggings and other kinds of psychological torture in prisons / care homes. In Afghanistan, women are systematically raped by Taliban in jails. What kind of civil disobedience can women mount in such barbaric patriarchal society?

In above mentioned cases, there is no channel of Civil dialogue in these nations as these are failed and closed societies. The pipe dream of Gandhian ahimsa has no applicability in these places.

Now let’s look at Fascism of 20th century. I am certain that if Gandhi was born and living in Europe at that time, there wouldn’t be any Gandhian myths on ahimsa. Why? Because Nazis simply exterminated people like Gandhi. Try doing a peaceful protest in third Reich and see how far civil disobedience will get you. Here I strongly recommend you to read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L Shirer. All channels of Civil dialogue were shutdown in Nazi Germany. You protest against the Reich, you get a show trial and sent to the gallows or a concentration camp. That is if you are not killed by Nazi street thugs first without any trial.

In Nazi society, civil disobedience or ahimsa had no meaning. Countless activists, journalists, students, intelligentsia etc were simply murdered for modest form of protest and often for no reason at all. Forget about criticizing the government in a newspaper as all media in totalitarian society was already under the thumb of Nazis, you couldn’t even whisper your contempt for Nazis to your neighbor or your friend. The ever vigilant Gestapo was always listening. So try organizing a Dandi march or any protest rally in such society.

The movement against Nazism inside Germany went underground and it had two camps. The first camp comprised of civil society intelligentsia. These people were shocked and horrified by what Hitler did to Germany. But they didn’t know how to fight back against Hitler in totalitarian Nazi society. They planned for a post-Nazi Germany after Hitler, a time when Nazis will be gone and German society can begun healing and reconstruction. But how will Nazis go away? They had no answer to this question. These civil society people met in secret to share their agony and ideas under the shadow of gestapo.

The second camp of anti-Nazi movement were more practical people. They had much clearer idea of things - that is Hitler and key Nazis had to be assassinated and military coup should be launched. This camp comprised of German military & intelligence officers and German bureaucrats & technocrats who well understood that Hitler was taking Germany towards a complete ruining. The responsibility of assassinating Hitler and disposing Nazis fell on this camp because by the time Hitler consolidated all power, only military and Army more precisely had the capacity to dispose Nazi regime.

Shirer puts things in clear perspective. Some of the anti-Nazi Generals turned out to be cowards. Hitler became a formidable force and the risks of plotting a coup against him were obvious - death for coup plotters and their families sent to concentration camps. So carrying out assassination plot against Hitler required courage and total commitment. It wasn’t any ahimsa or Gandhian nonviolence that could dispose Hitler and Nazis. What was needed was brute force and courage.

So how did things played out in Germany. By 1942, it was clear that only hope for saving Germany was a coup and assassination of Hitler. To those anti-Nazi civil society camp in Germany who hesitated to dispose Hitler, a message came from their friends in America - “We are not living in a world of saints, but of human beings.” Essence of message was quite clear. Anti-Nazi sentiments and idealism wasn’t enough, it was time to be courageous and take action. And only meaningful action was assassination of Hitler.

The handful of military officers in Nazi Germany did have the courage to launch a coup and assassination attempt against Hitler. Unfortunately, due to some of their shortcomings and some great stroke of luck for Hitler, the coup attempt failed and Hitler survived assassination attempts. Hitler obviously retaliated to that. Whether you were an active participant in coup or you are just a sympathizer of them or a part of peaceful civil society that despised Hitler - all were killed, sentenced through a show trial and hung by piano wires, and their families sent to concentration camps.

Hitler wasn’t taken down by any ahmisa or nonviolence movement. The assassination attempts against Hitler from inside of Germany unfortunately failed but the brute force to dispose Hitler and Nazis did come eventually although from outside of Germany. The force was violent and immense. It came from military of US, Russians and British as well as underground resistance movements in occupied Nazi territories. When Nazis occupied Europe, the dictatorial Nazi regime obviously shutdown all channels of Civil dialogue and abrogated all basic human decency. If you are in occupied France or occupied Poland or Occupied Norway, you can’t do any peaceful Satyagrah against Nazis. Even a thought of it is ludicrous.

Recall that Satyagrah was done by Gandhi against Britishers who treated him in a civilized way. Although they routinely sent him to Prison, he was given privileged treatment (he had access to newspapers & freedom to write letters), he was never tortured and physically abused, and was always released after brief stints so that he can carry on with his Satyagrah. Satyagrah can be done from such comforts. How about Satyagrah in Nazi Germany? Type of Satyagrah were also tried in Nazi Germany - like white rose movement - of which one of the leader was activist named Sophie Scholl. She and others like him were brutally tortured and murdered after a show trial by Nazis. Such kind of murders of peaceful protesters were common across Nazi occupied Europe and peaceful movements were neutralized with ease.

Pictures from Gestapo file of Hans & Sophie Scholl

So what can be response to Nazis in occupied territories? Of course, it was armed underground resistance. Resistance movements did various tasks like blowing up trains of Nazi Armies, assassinating important Nazi officials, killing Nazi Collaborators and similar type of Guerrilla operations. And there were also covert ops of spying, information gathering and relaying critical knowledge to Allied nations. If captured, the consequences for resistance fighters were brutal. But they chose their path courageously and it was the only feasible path for resistance at the time.

Resistance fighters - Jean Moulin (L) of France and Max Manus (R) of Norway

Believing in absoluteness of anything is nonsensical naivety. Believing that nonviolence is a solution to all problems is as wrong as believing war is solution to all problems. Both are extreme positions and both are wrong. We live in a civilized world, although far from perfect, so we know the futility of war. But to those who preach that nonviolence is answer to everything, my question to them is - what kind of nonviolence Jews & prisoners of concentration camp could demonstrate? Just peacefully walking into the Gas chambers or peacefully digging their own graves? Today, what kind of nonviolence can be practiced in North Korea or Putin’s Russia or by women in societies like Afghanistan?

Ahimsa is a futile doctrine in a closed society against an enemy who has no empathy and who intends to exterminate you. While colonial Britishers were oppressive rulers, they still had a sense of civility and they never had any ghastly plans for extermination of colonial subjects in India. (In fact, the oppression and plundering by Colonial Britishers in India is not very different than what Indian rulers before Colonial masters used to do locally and what political elites that came after colonial rule are doing to their domestic population.)

Experts like Dr Lee say that they have data to show that nonviolent movements have a better success rate. I suggest two things to these experts. First, they should put nonviolent movements in proper context and understand the wider dynamics. For example, in previous article I explained how failure of Communist economic system and transition to market society was the primary driver for arrival of democracy in Eastern Europe. Similarly, I also assert that one should not fall for political myths. For example, many intellectuals have fallen to myths of Gandhi and Indian Independence movement which are historically inaccurate.

Secondly, experts like Dr Lee should construct a scale of 1-10 where 10 being an open society with healthy channels of civil dialogue (like Canada) and 1 being a closed society like North Korea or Putin’s Russia as other end of extreme. The experts should put the society in consideration on this measuring scale and then examine the nonviolent movements with proper insight (not on basis of political myths). Experts will find that nonviolent movements have higher success rate only in open societies.

In 2024, 90 million Americans didn’t bother to vote in elections. In an open society, political freedoms are taken for granted, people get accustomed to their rights and assume that these will be there forever. When dictatorship comes (the kind you see in Russia), civil disobedience doesn’t get you anywhere. Today, America is an open society with channels of Civil dialogue wide open. Political participation in America is possible. Civil disobedience and nonviolence are most conducive to this environment and Americans should spend all energy to utilize these open channels to bring social change.