On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Thaths <[email protected]> wrote: > As the Indian independence (and women's suffrage) struggle(s) illustrated, > there are different ways of breaking an unjust rule/law. In my opinion, > forcing the hand of the oppressor to overreaction and exposing the inherent > violence and contradictions in the unjust rule/law is a better way of > bringing about change.
[Thread drift ahoy!] The popular narrative of non-violence is favorable to the liberator and the liberated and so it has stuck as the principal theme. However, let us note the acute bankruptcy of the British state post-WWII that ruled out the maintenance of adequate troop formations in any of their colonies, and the consequent liberation of most British colonies in the decade thereafter. The Western educated liberal intellectuals leading the Indian independence movement did however bring about huge social changes under the guise of independence, overturning the practices of centuries by writing women's suffrage, cast equality and secularism to name a few directly into the founding documents. Not a bit unlike the Japanese constitution in this regard. The euphoria of the moment served as an excellent diversion for effecting a social blitzkrieg of mammoth proportions, and for this they don't get enough recognition (leaving unsaid, whether it be in the forms of applause or brickbats). There really hasn't been a public discussion then or now about the merits of some of the changes it wrought on Indian society in one fell swoop.
