That's not the point. Heartfield wrote earlier:
> Pacifism, on the other had, is submission before the authority of
> the ruling class.
And in listing the imperialist struggles that inflicted real defeats he leaves out one of the most significant ones: the Indian independence movement. Which just so happens to be a non-violent one (whose leader and principles influenced both Mandela and King). I am sure what will follow is the slicing and dicing about non-violence/ ahimsa/pacifism and the violent elements of the Indian struggle, etc, and I will be glad to tackle each and every one of them. As Gandhi said, don't mistake non-violence/pacifism with passivity.
--ravi