I came across an interesting point of view today. Somebody told me (in the radio) that Revolutions are always (inherently) non violent. I would like to believe that is true. What do you think?
You will have to define revolution in that case. What Gandhiji did was a non-violent revolution but probably it wouldn't be as successful unless there were strong and violent attacks on the British government from other sects. Definitely it is not possible to come to a conclusion about a counter factual situation. My limited knowledge of history tells me human beings never accept change easily, no matter how trivial that is. So by revolution if we mean a drastic change of status quo of any group then someone must have paid the price with blood somewhere, hence I dont think it is possible to have a non-violent revolution
You will have to define revolution in that case. What Gandhiji did was a non-violent revolution but probably it wouldn't be as successful unless there were strong and violent attacks on the British government from other sects. Definitely it is not possible to come to a conclusion about a counter factual situation. My limited knowledge of history tells me human beings never accept change easily, no matter how trivial that is. So by revolution if we mean a drastic change of status quo of any group then someone must have paid the price with blood somewhere, hence I dont think it is possible to have a non-violent revolution
ReplyDelete